Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 31.03.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.1436 & 1437 of 2020

E.Chelladurai .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.B.Varadharajan

2.The State

Represented by Public Prosecutor,

Coimbatore.

.. Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397

read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Codeto set aside the Judgment

passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Coimbatore in C.A.No.200 of 2017 dated 06.11.2019, confirming the

Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 of Pollachi in STC.No.2219 of

2015 dated 06.07.2017.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.P.Kalimuthu

For R1

:

No appearance

For R2

:

Mr.S.Udayakumar

Government Advocate

1/8

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

Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2020

ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed against the concurrent

findings of the Courts below holding the revision petitioner guilty of

offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing the

cheque for Rs.70,000/- to the complainant, however the said cheque on

presentation was returned with an endorsement “Drawer signature

differs”.

2. The sum and substance of the case is that as a hand loan,

the revision petitioner received Rs.70,000/- from the respondent, and to

discharge the said loan, he gave a post dated cheque. When the cheque

was presented on 24.07.2015 for collection, it got returned with an

endorsement “Drawer signature differs”. Immediately, statutory notice

was given by the complainant on 09.09.2015, and the same was received

by the accused on 14.09.2015, but he has not replied. Hence, the

complaint.

3. In the course of trial, the complainant mounted the

witness box and was examined as P.W.1. To prove his complaint, he has

marked Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P1- Cheque dated 27.08.2015. Ex.P2-Bank

memo dated 27.08.2015, with endorsement “signature of the drawer

2/8

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

Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2020

differs”. Ex.P3-Statutory notice, dated 09.09.2015. Ex.P4 – the postal

acknowledgement card, to prove that the statutory notice was received by

the accused on 14.09.2015. On examination in chief by way of proof

affidavit, he marked the above four documents. The accused has taken

time to cross examine the complainant but failed to do so inspite of

several adjournments. Hence, the Trial Court has closed the complainant

side evidence and proceeded with the trial. Thereafter, the accused has

filed a petition to recall the witness and the said application was allowed

and the matter was adjourned for cross of P.W.1. The Trial Court has

recorded the dates of adjournment as 27.08.2016, 07.10.2016,

06.01.2017 and 02.03.2017. However, the accused did not come forward

to cross examine P.W.1 inspite of granting adjournment and therefore, the

evidence on the side of the complainant was closed and the matter was

posted for defence side evidence. Again, time was granted for defence

side evidence on 03.03.2017, 14.03.2017, 28.03.2017 and 04.04.2017.

The accused did not adduce any evidence hence his side evidence closed

and was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and thereafter, the Court

proceeded to appreciate the evidence and found the accused guilty and

3/8

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

Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2020

sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and pay a

compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- within two months. On appeal, the Lower

Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the

Trial Court's Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that

no opportunity was given to the accused to putforth his defence and

further more the cheque was returned not on the ground of “insufficient

funds” bu