Crl.R.C(MD)No.670 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 19.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.670 of 2018

1. M/s.Arrow Fashions

Rep.by its Managing Partner

A.Joseph Gnanarajan Arivarasu

No.8/2A, Sengunthapuram, 6^th Cross

Karur-2

2.A.Joseph Gnanarajan Arivarasu

....Petitioners

Vs.

Md.A.Tajudeen

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of judgment of

conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Mahalir

Neethimandram(Fast Track Mahila Court) Karur in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of

2017 dated 27.07.2018, whereby convicting and sentencing the first

appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and sentencing the second appellant to

undergo six months simple imprisonment by reversing the order of acquittal

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level

, Karur in STC No.1048 of 2011 dated 21.07.2015.

1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.670 of 2018

For Petitioners

: Mr.K.Suresh

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi

for Mr.R.Tamilvanan

ORDER

This revision has been filed to set aside the order of judgment

of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur in Criminal Appeal

No. 92 of 2017 dated 27.07.2018 reversing the order of acquittal passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) , Karur in

STC No.1048 of 2011 dated 21.07.2015.

2. The petitioners herein were arrayed as A1 and A2 in the complaint

lodged by the respondent herein for the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. The crux of the complaint is that, the respondent is the proprietor of

Aathikaa Textiles and doing business in handloom, textile and other

businesses incidental thereto. The first appellant is a registered partnership

firm doing textile business and the second appellant being Managing Partner

of the firm and doing business along with one another and they involved in

day to day business affairs and the management of the first accused firm.

During the course of business transaction, the first accused firm is liable to

2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.670 of 2018

pay a sum of Rs.7,77,529/- as on 31.12.2008 to the complainant. In order to

settle the above said dues, the first appellant issued two post dated cheques

dated 18.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.7,77,529/-. Both the cheques were

presented for collection on 08.05.2009. However, it was returned having

dishonoured, for the reason 'insufficient funds'. After causing statutory

notice, the respondent filed the complaint.

4. On the side of the respondent, he had examined three witnesses

and marked marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the side of the accused, he

was examined as D.W.1 and Court witnesses were also examined as Ex.X.1

to Ex.X.7.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court

found the accused persons not guilty for the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act and acquitted them. Aggrieved over the same, the

respondent filed an appeal and while allowing the appeal the appellate court

had convicted the first accused and directed the second accused to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- on behalf of the first accused in default of payment of which

the second accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and

the second and third accused are convicted and sented to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each

in default of payment of which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.670 of 2018

further one month.