IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.06.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

CRL.R.C.NO.553 OF 2014

V.Ramesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.S.N.Devaraju [Died]

2.Gopi

3.Jayapal

4.Sampath

5.Balakrishna

6.Manjula

7.Vamshidev

8.Pavanraj

[R2 to R8 impleaded as per order

in Crl.R.C.No.553/2014 dated 20.12.2021]

... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections

397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the

concurrent judgment and sentence dated 01.04.2013 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2012 on the file of Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri against the judgment dated

30.10.2012 passed in S.T.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate / Fast Track Court, Hosur.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.C.Samivel

for Mr.T.Arulraj

For Respondents

:

Mr.J.Hariharan

for Mr.V.Nicholas

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the

concurrent finding of the Courts below for a private complaint

filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The case of the complainant / respondent is that the

accused known to him for the past 10 years and he was a tenant

under him. To improve his business, he has received

Rs.9,00,000/- as hand loan and gave a post dated cheque, dated

19.07.2010. On presentation of the cheque it was returned as

'Funds Insufficient'. After causing statutory notice, a private

complaint has been filed for action under Section 138 of

N.I.Act.

4. The accused took specific defends stating that on

20.03.2010, he entered into a rental agreement with the

complainant in respect of the shop premises owned by the

complainant and as per the terms of the rental agreement, the

rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.100 per day and an advance of

Rs.20,000/- has been agreed to pay. In view of the advance, a

blank cheque drawn at IDBI bank bearing No.001227 was issued to

the complainant, the said cheque has been misused by the

complainant and filled it for Rs.9,00,000/- instead of

Rs.20,000/- and to discharge the same, the subject cheque was

issued. Since the specific defence was taken by the accused, the

very genuineness of the rental agreement was denied by the

complainant. Hence the disputed agreement was sent for

examination of handwriting expert. The expert attached to the

State Forensic Laboratory dated 24.07.2012 stating that the

questioned signature found in the rental agreement differs from

the standard signature i.e., the signature of the complainant.

5. Therefore, on considering the other facts and the

clear opinion of the handwriting expert, that the alleged rental

agreement is forged one created by the accused to make a false

defence, held that the accused is liable to be punished under

Sections 138 r/w. 142 of N.I.Act. Accordingly the accused was

imposed sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of

six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- to the

complainant; in default of payment, Simple Imprisonment for one

month.

6. The judgment of conviction and sentence was

challenged by the accused before the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.71 of 2012. The

appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by

the trial Court.

7. In the revision, it is canvased that the Courts

below erred in appreciating the evidence particularly Ex.D1 /

the Rental agreement and the purported signature of the accused

and the complainant which states about the blank cheque bearing

No.001227 issued by the accused drawn at IDBI bank, whereas,

having established that the blank cheque was given as a security

towards the rental agreement advance, the Courts below have

erred that the subject cheque was given in order to discharge an

enforceable debt.

8. This Court fi