Crl.R.C.Nos.297 and 305 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3854 and 3855 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on:25.04.2023

Pronounced on:18.05.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.Nos.297 and 305 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3854 and 3855 of 2020

M.C.Baby

.. Petitioner in both cases

/versus/

M/s Sastha Home Tech,

Rep.by its Partner,

Mr.S.G.Konda Reddy,

No.34, Spurtank Road,

Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.

.. Respondent in both cases

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.297 of 2020 : Criminal Revision Case has been filed

under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records

and set aside the order and judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.A.No.111/2016

passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby

dismissing the appeal and confirming the order and judgment dated 13.04.2016

in C.C.No.1647/2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC

No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, acquit the petitioner.

1/16

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.297 and 305 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3854 and 3855 of 2020

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.305 of 2020: Criminal Revision Case has been filed

under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records

and set aside the order and judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.A.No.112/2016

passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby

dismissing the appeal and confirming the order and judgment dated 13.04.2016

in C.C.No.1648/2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC

No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, acquit the petitioner.

For Petitioner

:Mr.R.Baskar in both cases

For Respondent

:Mr.A.Nagarajan in both cases

Government Advocate(crl.side)

------

COMMON ORDER

These two revision petitions are preferred by the accused who was held

guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the

Trial Court in C.C.No:1647/2006 and C.C.No.1648/2006 (on the file of

Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet) and the same on

appeal, confirmed by the Lower Appellant Court in C.A.No.111/2016 and

C.A.No.112/2016 respectively (on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge,

Chennai).

2/16

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.297 and 305 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3854 and 3855 of 2020

2. The point for consideration in these two cases is, whether a complaint

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by a partner of the firm

without authorisation is maintainable.

3. The parties involved in the lis is one and the same, therefore, common

judgment is passed. For the sake of brevity, the revision petitioner and the

respondent are referred as accused and complainant, as described in the

complaints.

4. The brief facts leading to these revision petitions is summarised under:-

The complainant/respondent M/s Sastha Home Tech is a partnership firm

trading with Iron and Steel bars. The accused/revision petitioner Ms.M.C.Baby,

is a Railways Contractor. On various dates, the revision petitioner had placed

orders for supply of materials and as per the orders, materials were delivered to

the construction site of the revision petitioner by the complainant M/s Sastha

Home Tech. When the complainant demanded repayment of dues, the accused

to partially discharge the dues gave two cheques one bearing No:0159895,

3/16

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

Crl.R.C.Nos.297 and 305 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3854 and 3855 of 2020

dated 31/12/2004 drawn on M/s Federal Bank Ltd, Thanjavur Branch,

Tamilnadu, for Rs.7,41,923/- and another bearing No:390060, dated

31/03/2005 drawn on M/s Federal Bank Ltd, Puthenocruz Branch, Kerala for

Rs.14,20,235/-.

5. The cheque dated 31/12/2004 for Rs.7,41,923/- was presented for

collection on 24/06/2005 and same got bounced on 27/06/2005 for the reason

'insufficient of funds'. The complainant caused statutory notice on 27/07/2005

calling upon the accused to make payment o