IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders Reserved on : 17.03.2025 Orders Pronounced on : 28.03.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.2386 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.Nos.18401 and 18402 of 2024 --

Haridoss Udaiyar, S/o Annamalai Udaiyar .. Petitioner Vs.

Prabudoss, S/o Kathirvel .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS praying to call for the records in Crl.Appeal No.46 of 2024, dated 15.10.2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.190 of 2019 on 10.04.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet and set aside the same.

For petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muruganantham For respondent: Mr.Irfan Baasha ORDER This revision petition is filed praying to call for the records in Crl.Appeal No.46 of 2024, dated 15.10.2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment in C.C.No.190 of 2019 on 10.04.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet and set aside the same.

2. The revision petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.190 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet, in which, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trial, convicted the revision petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.12 lakhs as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo a further sentence of two months imprisonment. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.46 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kallakurichi, which was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence confirmed by the appellate Court, the revision petitioner/accused has filed the present revision petition.

4. The case of the respondent/complainant, as per the complaint filed before the trial Court is that, he was alleged to have given a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the revision petitioner on 19.05.2019, for which, the petitioner issued cheque, dated 19.06.2019 for the said amount. The respondent presented the cheque on 19.06.2019 for collection, and the cheque was returned with endorsement "funds insufficient" through a return memo, dated 20.06.2019.

5. Therefore, the respondent issued statutory notice on 25.06.2019, which was received by the petitioner on 27.06.2019. On receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner neither repaid the amount within the statutory period, nor sent any reply denying the liability. Hence, the respondent was constrained to file a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on 13.08.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ulundurpet. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the revision petitioner/accused, who appeared on 04.01.2020 on summons. The revision petitioner admitted his signature and denied the receipt of Rs.6 lakhs a mentioned in the cheque.

6. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, he was examined as P.W.1 and four documents were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner/accused, he was examined as D.W.1 and one Amaladoss was examined as D.W.2. to prove the defence. The trial Court allowed the complaint and convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.12 lakhs (being twice the amount mentioned in the disputed cheque). Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused prefe