Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARAKURUP, J.
G. Padmanaban – Appellant
Versus
K.M. Periyasamy – Respondent
Crl.RC. No. 1042 of 2019
Decided On : 10-08-2023
For the Petitioner:J.N. Naresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent: No representation.
The burden of proving the defense of the accused and the shift in burden of proving guilt based on evidence were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petition - Conviction based on Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 138 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the burden of proof on the accused, and the presumption available under the Act. The court emphasized that the defense of the accused must be proved and that the burden of proving guilt shifts based on the evidence presented. The court also highlighted the adverse inference drawn on the conduct of the accused. The judgment of the trial Court and the Appellate Court were confirmed based on the appreciation of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the judgment confirming his conviction and sentence for an offense under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused argued that the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment of the trial Court and the Appellate Court was based on the appreciation of evidence and confirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appreciation of evidence, burden of proof on the accused, and the presumption available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the defense of the accused, the shift in burden of proving guilt based on evidence, and the adverse inference drawn on the conduct of the accused were the key legal principles applied by the court.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the Accused was directed to be secured by issuing a warrant for compliance.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.25 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.6 of 2014 dated 27.12.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Erode by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.)
1. This Criminal Revision Petition had been filed to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.25 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.6 of 2014 dated 27.12.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Erode.
2. When the case came up for hearing on previous occasion, there was no representation for the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, this Court had addressed the Legal Aid Committee to nominate a Counsel to appear for the Revision Petitioner and the case was adjourned.
3. On 04.08.2023, the learned Counsel who was nominated by the Legal Aid Committee, sought further time, as he wanted to peruse the deposition of the witness before the trial Court and sought further time, and he also sought copies of the deposition of the witnesses before the trial Court for effectively submitting his arguments. This Court refused the request of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner stating that in the revision case, this Court cannot appreciate evidence. The Revision Petition is filed only on technicalities of law regarding either the judgment of the trial Court or the Appellate Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel nominated by the Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court, was directed to proceed with the arguments on 10.08.2023, failing which, appropriate orders will be passed.
4. Today, 10.08.2023, when the case came up for hearing, the learned Counsel who was nominated by the Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court, submitted his arguments.
5. As per the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the Accused before the trial Court is the Revision Petitioner. The Complainant and Accused are not known to each other. The statutory notice issued by the Complainant was returned without serving on the Accused. Therefore, he was unable to reply to this statutory notice. Further, it is defence of the Accused before the trial Court that the Complainant does not have resources to extend the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Accused. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Accused and friend of the Accused viz., Saravanan, were in the textile business. The Complainant was also in the textile business and 10 years before filing of the complaint, the Complainant suffered loss in textile business and he closed the textile business. Therefore, he does not have resources to extend the loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is his defence in the trial in S.T.C.No.6 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court- II, Erode, that the Complainant does not have the resources to extend loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Accused. The Accused had not at all received any loan from the Complainant. Earlier, the Accused had received loan from his friend Saravanan and had repaid it. At the time of availing loan, the Accused was alleged to have issued duly signed blank cheque to Saravanan. When he had also repaid the loan, those cheques have been taken up by the Complainant and filled up and based on such misuse of the Cheque, the Complainant had filed the complaint in S.T.C.No.6 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Erode. In the cross examination of the Complainant-P.W.1 the defence of the Accused was put to him as suggestions and he had admitted in cross examination that he had sold textile business 10 years prior to filing of this Complaint. The Complainant as P.W- 1 had clearly in his cross examination stated that he does not know the addres
