Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.04.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3178 & 3179 of 2020

A.Subramanian

.. Petitioner

Vs.

P.Kannammal

..Respondent

The Public Prosecutor

...Formal Party

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397

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

the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode on 31.10.2019 in

Crl.A.No.97 of 2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track No.II, Erode in S.T.C.No.331

of 2013 dated 21.07.2015.

For Petitioner

:

M/s.M.Lourdu

For Respondent

:

Steps not taken & died

1/14

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

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

2.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent

findings of the Courts below holding that the revision petitioner was

guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for

issuing a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent after closing the

account.

3.

According to the complaint, the revision petitioner borrowed

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 22.12.2012. To

discharge the debt, he gave the subject cheque dated 22.01.2013 for

Rs.5,00,000/- When the cheque was presented for collection, it got

bounced with a memo stating that “Account Closed”. Thereafter, the

respondent has caused notice under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, dated 22.02.2013 calling upon the revision

petitioner/accused to pay the cheque amount and intimating about the

bouncing of the cheque. The statutory notice was received by the accused

2/14

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

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

on 28.02.2013, however, he has not sent any reply. Thereafter, the

complaint presented before the Fast Track Court, Erode was taken on file

and the same has been assigned S.T.C.No.331 of 2013.

4.

The complainant has explained her source of money to lend

Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused, whereas the accused who had pleaded that

he had no financial transaction with the complainant and the transaction

was only with husband and son of the complainant not been proved even

by preponderance of probability. Therefore, the accused was held guilty

of offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and the Trial Court sentenced

him to undergo one year S.I and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default,

one month Simple Imprisonment.

5.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused

preferred an appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Erode. In the course of the appeal, he took out an application to adduce

additional evidence. The lower Appellate Court allowed the petition

filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The Auditor by name Subramanian was

3/14

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

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

examined as DW.3 and through him Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.

Relying upon these documents, the accused before the lower Appellate

Court contended that there was a business transaction existing between

him and the husband of the complainant. The two invoices marked as

Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 raised by Sri Chinnamman Wax Printers in the name of

Raja Tex, Karur, for a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs.2,98,480/-

respectively, which are dated 20.03.2008 and 27.03.2008, go to show that

there was a business transaction between him and the husband of the

complainant. Further, Ex.D3-the Statement of Account ending that

20.07.2008 indicating that there was a running account between the

Chinnamman Wax Printers and Raja Tex, Karur. It was contended that

the subject cheque was given as a security for the goods supplied on

credit by the husband of the complainant and not to the complainant to

discharge any debt he owe to her.

6.

The lower Appellate