Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, JJ.
Sujatha Ramanathan - Petitioner
Vs.
Ramya - Respondent
Crl. RC No. 406 of 2017 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 3782 to 3784 of 2017
Decided On : 07-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Elambharathi
For the Respondent: Mrs. B. Ramya, Party-in-person
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 - Section 190(1) , 482 and 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - General Clauses Act - Section 27 - Evidence Act - Section 114 - Criminal Revision Case was filed against Judgment of learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, in Crl.A.No.85 by which Judgment made in C.C.No.10816 by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was confirmed - Respondent had filed a complaint before trial Court under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - According to said complaint, one (son of the petitioner) had approached respondent for a short term loan to meet out the urgent medical expenses - Father of the said is a long time friend of father of the respondent - Respondent contacted said and his wife, who is mother of said, and conveyed requisition made by their son Kumar - In turn, parents of complainant had stated to respondent that they did not have sufficient amount to help their son and therefore, they requested respondent that if she helped him, said amount would be repaid by them shortly - Realizing genuine need of said three persons, respondent had paid by way of cash to said - Parents of him stood as Guarantors and all of them agreed to repay amount to respondent within two months - As assured, they did not come forward to pay back amount to respondent. – Held, In light of these extracts, court are in agreement with respondent claimant that presumption mandated by Section 139 of Act does indeed include existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - As noted in citations, this is of course in nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to accused to raise a defence wherein existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested - However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours complainant - Therefore, this Court finds that there is no ground to interfere with order of the trial Court, as has been confirmed by order of First Appellate Court - This Court feels that said compensation, equal to cheque amount is not on the higher side and therefore, such compensation does not warrant any interference - For all these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case fails and accordingly, same is dismissed with aforesaid modification regarding imprisonment - Trial Court is directed to take steps to secure petitioner/accused to undergo punishment awarded against her - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
This Criminal Revision Case was filed against the Judgment of the learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.85 of 2016 dated 02.03.2017 by which the Judgment made in C.C.No.10816 of 2008 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. III, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 24.02.2016, was confirmed.
2. The respondent had filed a complaint before the trial Court under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “N.I. Act”).
3. According to the said complaint, one Kumar (son of the petitioner) had approached the respondent for a short term loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet out the urgent medical expenses. The father of the said Kumar namely, Ramanathan, is a long time friend of the father of the respondent. The respondent contacted the said Ramanathan and his wife, who is the mother of the said Kumar, namely, Sujatha Ramanathan and conveyed the requisition made by their son Kumar. In turn, the parents of Kumar had stated to the respondent that they did not have the sufficient amount to help their son and therefore, they requested the respondent that if she helped him, the said amount would be repaid by them shortly.
4. Realizing the genuine need of the said three persons, the respondent had paid Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cash to the said Kumar on 09.09.2007. In fact, the said three persons came in person and received the amount from the respondent. For the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs, which was given as hand loan to the said Kumar, the parents of him stood as Guarantors and all of them agreed to repay the amount to the respondent within two months.
5. As assured, they did not come forward to pay back the amount to the respondent. It was repeatedly demanded by the respondent and therefore, all the three persons had given a Cheque, of course, in the name of the mother of the said Kumar, i.e., Mrs. Sujatha Ramanathan, i.e., the petitioner in an S.B.A/c of Indian Overseas Bank, Stella Marries College Branch, Chennai-86, bearing No.712983, dated 05.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.9,25,000/-, being the part payment to clear the debts to the respondent.
6. The said cheque was presented by the respondent at her Bank namely, Canara Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai-14 on 11.11.2007. However, the cheque was returned dishonoured for the reason that Payment stopped by the drawer . The said Memo of the drawer's Bank dated 13.11.2007 along with the intimation of the respondent's Bank dated 14.11.2007, was received by the respondent with the returned cheque. Thereafter, the respondent caused a notice to all the three persons demanding them to pay back the said amount of Rs.9,25,000/- being the cheque amount, on 21.11.2007. The said notice sent by the respondent was served on all the three persons on 22.11.2017. Even after the receipt of notice, the petitioner and her son and husband namely, Kumar and Ramanathan, did not come forward to settle the amount. Hence, the respondent had filed the said complaint before the trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. In fact, the respondent had issued a single notice to all the three persons even though the cheque was issued in the name of Sujatha Ramanathan, the mother of Kumar, the petitioner herein. Therefore, the respondent filed the complaint against all the three persons by arrayed them as A1, A2 and A3.
8. The trial Court, after having completed the trial, had ultimately rendered the Judgment in C.C.No.10816 of 2008 on 24.02.2016. By the said Judgment, the trial Court has acquitted A1-Ramanathan and A3-Kumar, as the cheque was not issued in their names, however, convicted A2-Sujatha Ramanathan and sentenced her to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed her to pay the cheque amount as compensation in terms of Section 255(2) of the Code.
9. Aggrieved over the said Judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an Appeal before the
