Advocates:
['M/S N MANOKARAN', '', 'P KAVIRI NADAN', 'R RENUKADEVI', 'M/S I C VASUDEVAN', '', 'R NIRMALA']

BAIL SLIP

The Petitioner/Accused viz., K.Palanisamy was directed

released on Bail in Crl.M.P.No.10870 of 2017 in CRL.R.C.No.1145

of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 on the file of the Honourable High

Court, Madras.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 16.03.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 07.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.R.C.NO.1145 OF 2017

K.Palanisamy

... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

Vs.

P.Balasubramanian

... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction

imposed in the judgment dated 16.08.2017 made in C.A.No.4 of

2017 on the file of the learned Second Additional District and

Sessions Court, Erode confirming the judgment dated 24.11.2016

made in S.T.C.No.504 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Erode by allowing this

Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganesh for Mr.N.Manokaran

For Respondent : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan

ORDER

The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode (trial Court), vide

judgment in S.T.C.No.504 of 2012, dated 24.11.2016 and sentenced

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

to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple

Imprisonment for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was preferred before the

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode (lower

appellate Court) in C.A.No.4 of 2017. The lower appellate

Court, by judgment, dated 16.08.2017, dismissed the appeal

confirming the judgment of the trial Court, as against which,

the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the

petitioner.

2.The gist of the case is that on 28.05.2012, the

petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the

respondent/complainant for his urgent need. In discharge of the

liability, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque for

Rs.3,00,000/- vide No.640722, dated 28.07.2012 in favour of

Karur Vysya Bank, Komarapalayam Branch. When the respondent

presented the above cheque for collection on 28.07.2012 through

the Indian Overseas Bank, Moolapalayam Branch, Erode, the cheque

was returned as unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the

petitioner's account with a bank memo 'Account Closed' on

30.07.2012. Annoyed over the same, the respondent issued a

statutory notice to the petitioner to his residence address as

well as office address on 11.08.2012. The said statutory notice

was not received and returned with an endorsement 'Addressee

initial differed so refused' on 17.08.2012. Again, another

statutory notice with correct initial and address was issued on

23.08.2012. Despite intimation was given to the petitioner, the

petitioner failed to receive the notice and the postal cover was

returned with endorsement 'Not claimed' on 01.09.2012. Hence,

the respondent filed a complaint before the trial Court for

offence under Section 138 of the Act.

3.During trial, on the side of the complainant/respondent,

he examined himself as PW1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to

P8. On the side of the defence, 3 witnesses were examined as

DW1 to DW3 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D4. After

ful-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner as

stated above.

The lower appellate Court confirmed the

conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

4.The primary grounds, on which, the present revision has

been filed, is that there is no evidence on record to prove the

transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. Both the

Courts below wrongly proceeded on the basis of presumption under

Se