Crl.RC.No.1317 of 2022

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

1/12

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

Crl.RC.No.1317 of 2022

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

2/12

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

Crl.RC.No.1317 of 2022

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

3/12

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

Crl.RC.No.1317 of 2022

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 tria