BAIL SLIP IN CRL.R.C.No.1099/2017

The Petitioner herein/Accused namely Sunil Kumar.C aged 48

years S/o Balan, was directed to be released on bail by order of

this Court dated 31/10/2017 made in CRL.M.P.No.10344/2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.R.C.No.1099 of 2017

Sunil Kumar.C

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Abdul Khader M.A.

2.The State represented through the

Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 379 r/w

section 401 of Cr.P.C, to setaside the judgment dated 02-03-

2017 passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2014 by the II Additional Sessions

Judge at Puducherry, confirming the Judgment dated 17-10-2014

made in S.T.R.No. 2019 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate Mahe,

convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the petitioner to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine amount

of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine further to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pleased to

pass the Judgment to acquit the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.V.Kumar

For Respondent :

Mr.R.Krishna Prasad

for R1

for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondent :

Mr.V.Balamurugane

No.2

Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in S.T.R.No.2019 of 2013 who was

convicted by the trial Court by judgement dated 17.10.2014 for

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and

further, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

three months simple imprisonment. Against which, the petitioner

filed an appeal before the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Pudhucherry, in Crl.A.No.39 of 2014. The II Additional Sessions

Judge, Pudhucherry, by judgement dated 02.03.2017 dismissed the

appeal confirming the trial Court judgment. Against which, the

present revision.

2.Mr.C.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in this case, the petitioner has got no relationship with

the respondent/ complainant and the petitioner not issued any

cheque to him. It is the respondent's son-in-law one Athif

Abdulla, who had some financial transaction with the petitioner.

At that time, the petitioner handed over the signed cheque to

him, which was misused and filled up. Hence, the case has been

prosecuted. During the trial, the same was questioned. Further,

it is the case of the petitioner that there is no debt for a sum

of Rs.7,50,000/-. It was only a signed cheque, which was filled

up and misused. The respondent has got no source to lend such

huge amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as loan. Though the same was raised

before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, the

same was failed to consider.

3.Mr.R.Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the first

respondent submitted that the petitioner, on receipt of the

statutory notice, sent a reply notice, which was marked as

Ex.P7. In the reply notice, he admits that cheque was given as

security to the respondent. He further admits that he borrowed a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent, who is a money lender

and he repaid more than Rs.3,00,000/- to him. The trial Court

considering all these aspects and observed that the petitioner

had not given any complaint to show that the cheque was

misplaced or lying with the respondent after discharge of the

liabilities. Further, the said Athif Abdulla, who is none other

than the son-in-law of the respondent. Neither the son-in-law of

the respondent was examined as witness nor the petitioner got

into the box to disprove his case. The statutory presumption is

in favour of the respondent. Further, the petitioner admits his

signature. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

once the signed cheque was handed ov