IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2022 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case No.1317 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.14025 of 2022 Jayagopal ... Petitioner Vs.

D.Prakash ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and set aside the order dated 31.03.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, FTC-II, Egmore, Allikulam in C.C.No.16136 of 2008 by a Judgment dated

04.12.2019 by allowing this revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ganesh

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been file seeking to set aside the Judgement in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and set aside the order dated 31.03.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Allikulam in C.C.No.16136 of

2008 by a Judgment dated 04.12.2019.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant.

The respondent had registered a private complaint against the petitioner and three others under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Allikulam, and the learned Magistrate taken the case on file in C.C.No.16136 of 2008. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate not found guilt of the 4^th accused and thereby, acquitted the 4^th accused. Further, the learned Magistrate found guilt of the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereby, convicted and sentenced A2 and A3 to undergo each one year Simple Imprisonment and ordered A1 to A3 to pay the cheque amount of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation to the complainant in default, A2 and A3 to undergo further 3 months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A2 and A3 filed appeal before the V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/A2 has filed the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the statutory notice, the respondent has not mentioned the amount of Rs.45 lakhs and the respondent has not stated how he knows the petitioner/A2 and the other accused. Further, he has not stated the mode of payment. Obviously, the respondent could not have paid such a huge amount by cash. Therefore, if the respondent had really paid the amount of Rs.45 lakhs to the accused firm, he might have paid the same through RTGS and if, it was paid through RTGS, he would have produced the bank statement, whereas he has not produced the same. Further, the respondent during his cross examination has admitted that he has not shown this money in his Income Tax Returns. Therefore, the respondent has not proved that the consideration was paid to the accused firm. Further, the respondent has not filed the partnership deed of the 1^st accused firm and the respondent in his complaint has mentioned that the petitioner/A2 and 3^rd accused are in charge for the day to day business activities whereas in the said Promissory Note, there is no address or seal of the 1^st accused firm. Further, the 4^th accused is none other than the father of the petitioner/A2. When the trial Court acquitted the 4^th accused, it should have acquitted the other accused also since the respondent has not stated any details even in the very statutory notice. Therefore, there is no cause of action against the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He would further submi