##PAGE1##

CRL RC No. 1046 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL RC No. 1046 of 2021

D.Siva Subramaniam S/o. T.A. Durai Samy,

No. 4/24, Saranga Avenue Main Road, Old Perungalatur, Chennai - 600 063.

..Petitioner Vs

K.S.Gopalakrishnan S/o. Krishnapillai,

823, Jeevanantham Salai, K.K. Nagar, Chennai - 600 078.

..Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.989 of 2011, dated 28.03.2019, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – III, Saidapet, as confirmed in C.A.No.183 of 2019, dated 20.09.2021 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai are to be set aside.

For Petitioner: Mr. G.Murugendran For Respondent: Mr.R. Suryaprakash

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1046 of 2021

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the Judgment

dated 20.09.2021 passed in C.A.No.183 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.989 of 2011 dated 28.03.2019 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the accused owned a premise and entered into a lease agreement with the respondent for a total lease amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- between 08.09.2007 and 05.10.2007. Thereafter, on 21.06.2010, the accused entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the said property and received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Thus, in total, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.11,05,000/- to the accused. However, the accused failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent demanded repayment of the said amount, for which the petitioner issued two cheques, one for a sum of

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1046 of 2021

Rs.11,05,000/- and another for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. When both the cheques were presented for collection, the same were returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Account Closed”. After causing a statutory

notice, the respondent lodged a complaint.

3. In order to prove the complaint, the respondent had examined

P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. On the side of the accused, he had examined

D.W.1 and no documents were marked to disprove the case.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court

found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay double the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court and confirmed by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision

Case has been filed.

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1046 of 2021

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the grounds

that the debt itself is barred by limitation, since a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- was paid between 08.09.2007 and 05.10.2007 on execution of the lease deed. Therefore, as on 05.10.2007, the debt itself is barred by limitation. The cheques were returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Account Closed”. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotia