Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
K.P. Anandhee – Appellant
Versus
K. Ravikumar – Respondent
CRL.R.C. No. 1097 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. No. 14843 of 2019
Decided On : 10-08-2023
For the Petitioner:P.A. Sudesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Raja Ravi Varma, Advocate.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque for the discharge of the said debt. Proper interpretation of evidence is crucial in reaching a sustainable decision.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Cheque - Section 142 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and its applicability to the case. It highlighted the requirement for the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the issuance of the cheque for the discharge of the said debt. The court also emphasized the significance of evidence and pleadings in establishing the loan transaction and the execution of the cheque by the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a manager at a jewelry store, filed a complaint against the accused for dishonoring a cheque issued as repayment for a loan. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the lower appellate court ordered the payment of compensation. The accused filed a revision petition against the compensation order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court's order for compensation based on a reply notice was unsustainable in law. It set aside the compensation order and restored the judgment of acquittal by the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the complainant's burden to prove the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque, as well as the lower appellate court's interpretation of the reply notice as an admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden was on the complainant to prove the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque. It also emphasized the need for proper interpretation of evidence and the unsustainability of the lower appellate court's compensation order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision case, set aside the compensation order, restored the judgment of acquittal by the trial court, and canceled the bail bond executed by the accused.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.92 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District modifying the judgment dated 11.04.2012 passed in C.C.No.461 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District.)
1. The accused is the revision petitioner herein.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the revision case, is as follows:
(i) The respondent herein filed a complaint in C.C.No.461 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Vellore, Vellore District, based upon Ex.P.2-Cheque.
(ii) According to the complaint, the Respondent herein is working as a Manager in Vijay Shree Jewellers, which is owned by one Sarjanraj. The Revision Petitioner herein has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and issued cheque in question and the same was dishonoured and hence, the Complainant filed the complaint.
(iii) After following the procedure, the trial Court acquitted the Revision Petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the Complainant has preferred Crl.A.No.92 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore.
(iv) On Appeal, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the order of acquittal, with the modification to pay admitted amount of Rs.2,66,720/- as that of compensation. As against the said order of payment of compensation by the lower Appellate Court, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited my attention to Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and could contend that the private complainant is neither a payee nor holder in due course of the cheque and hence analogue of drawing of Section 142 does not arise. The Complainant filed the case as a Manager of the payee. The learned counsel for the Petitioner could further contend that the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the documents.
5. The respondent herein is one K.Ravikumar, who claims to be the Manager of Vijay Shree Jewellers. He instituted the private complaint based upon the authorisation letter. For the reasons best known it appears that the complaint has been taken on file, which is discussed infra.
6. As per the private complaint, as well as the evidence of PW1, the facts of the case is as follows:
(i) The complainant has examined himself as PW1. According to him he is working as a Manager in Vijay Shree Jewellers. His owner has given authorisation letter under Ex.P1 to him for filing this complaint. The accused during July 2007 borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and agreeing to repay it in two months she has executed a promissory note for the same. On 20.10.2007 he and his owner have went to the accused house and demanded the payment of the principal amount with interest. The accused has issued Ex.P2 the cheque bearing No.707274 for Rs.4,08,000/- and has got back the promissory note executed by her.
(ii) On 23.10.2007 the complainant presented the cheque for collection through his banker Dhanalakshmi Bank, Vellore. The cheque was returned for want of sufficient funds on 24.10.2007 under Ex.P3 the return memo. Therefore, the complainant has issued a notice under Ex.P4 on 01.11.2007. The Accused has received the notice sent through registered post and the acknowledgment card therefor is Ex.P5. The receipt for sending the notice through certificate of posting is Ex.P6. The Accused on 19.11.2007 has issued a reply notice under Ex.P7, wherein she has prayed time for the payment of the amount till January next. The accused did not pay the cheque amount as demanded and hence, PW1 has prayed that the accused be punished in accordance with law.
7. The revision petitioner accused has denied the alleged loan transaction, execution of the promiss
