Crl.RC No.1552 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Crl.R.C. No.1552 of 2017

M.V.Daniel

... Petitioner

Vs.

C.P.Shanmugasundaram

... Respondent

Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1) and 401 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A. No.116 of

2016 dated 06.09.2017 filed confirming the Judgment and Sentence passed

in C.C. No.200 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast

Tract Court No.1, Coimbatore dated 23.08.2016 and set aside the same by

allowing the above Crl.R.C.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.K.Karthik Raja

1/10

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

Crl.RC No.1552 of 2017

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order

of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated

06.09.2017 made in Crl.A. No.116 of 2016.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused against whom the respondent had

filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As

per the case of the respondent the accused had borrowed a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- on 24.05.2012 as a hand loan to meet out his urgent expenses

and in order to discharge the same, he issued two cheques bearing cheque

numbers No.033974 dated 23.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and

another cheque bearing No.000053 dated 25.05.2012 for a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Coimbatore. As per the

request of the petitioner both the cheque were presented for collection on

25.05.2012 through Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. The cheque for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient' and

another cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was returned with an

endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer”. After receiving the return

memo, the complainant issued a legal notice on 29.05.2016 and the same

2/10

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

Crl.RC No.1552 of 2017

was received by the petitioner on 30.05.2016. The petitioner sent a reply

notice and the respondent had also sent a rejoinder on 19.06.2012. After

complying the legal mandates, the complaint was filed. During trial, on the

side of the complainant one witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to

P3 were marked. On the side of the accused no witnesses were examined.

3. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge found the

accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation for a sum

of Rs.4,00,000/- within two months from the date of the judgment. The

appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the trial Judge

was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Now this

revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the lower

appellate Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of the two

cheques for which the complaint was filed, one cheque for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- was dated 23.05.2012; since the respondent himself had stated

3/10

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

Crl.RC No.1552 of 2017

that the loan transaction was on 24.05.2012 the cheque bearing dated

23.05.2012 cannot be presumed to be issued for legally enforcible debt or

liability; the Courts below without properly analyzing the improbabilities in

the case of the respondent, had chosen to find the accused guilty which is

not sustainable.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

petitioner had taken a different defence by alleging that he had acted as a

mediator for a loan obtained by one Ram Kumar from the respondent and

during that course he gave his ow