##PAGE1##

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 24.03.2026 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2021

R.Babu ... Petitioner

Vs.

P.Sivakumar ... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to pass order for suspend the sentence dated 22.12.2020 passed in S.T.C.No.13 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Thiruvannamalai and confirmed the same by the Principal District and Sessions Court at Thiruvannamalai on 07.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal

No.5 of 2021 until disposal of the above Criminal Revision.

For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Sathyamurthy For Respondent : Mr.B. Jawahar

O R D E R

This Revision case is filed as against the Judgment passed in

Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court at Thiruvannamalai confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at

Thiruvannamalai in S.T.C.No.13 of 2018 dated 22.12.2020.

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 12:58:18 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2021

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case is as follows:

2.1.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, it has been stated that the petitioner used to borrow money from the respondent as hand loan frequently and used to repay the same as and when the petitioner gets funds. Whileso, as the amount borrowed by the accused spiraled to Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.07.2017 the complainant demanded for the repayment. Hence, the petitioner issued cheque to repay the said amount and when the cheque was presented for collection it was returned as “funds insufficient. Thereafter, the respondent issued legal notice and lodged a complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court and the Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act..

2.2.Before the Trial Court, respondent herein/Sivakumar examined

himself as P.W.1 and Documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked and no witnesses and documents were marked on the side of the petitioner

herein.

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 12:58:18 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2021

2.3. On a perusal of the Oral and Documentary evidence the Trial

Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C and he was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e the amount due on the cheque to the complainant u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C and on default of payment of compensation the accused was further sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court at Thiruvannamalai and the same was dismissed on 07.12.2021.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent did not whisper on what date the amount was borrowed and how much amount was borrowed by the petitioner. Further the respondent did not rely any documents to prove that he had sufficient funds to lend such a huge amount to the petitioner. Further the respondent categorically admitted in his cross examination that there were two notices. Further the respondent failed to serve the second notice to the

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2026 12:58:18 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2021 petitioner. The petitioner is aged about 66 years and now he is bedridden

and counting his days. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

petitioner did not even elicitate anything when P.W.1 was cross examined and to rebut the presu