IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09-06-2015

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN

Criminal Revision Case Nos.428 and 429 of 2008

Gowthamchand

.. Petitioner

in both revisions.

Versus

Indhrani

.. Respondent

in both revisions

Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 07.12.2007 made in C.A.Nos.9 and 8

of 2007 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge,

Chennai, reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by

the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008, in

C.C.Nos. 1833 of 2003 and 1832 of 2003, dated 13.12.2006.

For Petitioner

:

Ms.G.Sumithra

in both revisions

For Respondent

:

No Appearance

in both revisions

COMMON ORDER

The respondent/accused was convicted by the learned X

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008, in C.C.Nos. 1833 of

2003 and 1832 of 2003, dated 13.12.2006, for an offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months in each case and to pay a

sum of Rs.73,575/- and Rs.18,250/- respectively as compensation

within six months, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

three months. Challenging the same, the respondent/accused has

preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 9 and 8 of 2007 before the learned IV

Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, which were allowed on 07.12.2007,

thereby, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial

Court. As against the same, the complainant's son has filed the

present Criminal Revision Cases.

2. The complainant is one S.R.Jain, subsequently, he died and

thereafter, in his place, his son Gowtham Chand was substituted.

The case of the complainant is that the respondent/accused has

borrowed a sum of Rs.26,425/-, Rs.47,150/- and Rs.18,250/- and to

repay the same, the accused issued four cheques. When the

complainant presented the cheques for collection, the same returned

with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. The complainant issued a

lawyer's notice. After receiving the notice, the accused neither

sent a reply nor came forward to settle the amount, hence, the

complaint was given by the complainant. The complaint was taken on

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,

and it was assigned C.C.Nos.1833 and 1832 of 2003. The Trial Court

has found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months in each case and to pay a sum of

Rs.73,575/- and Rs.18,250/- respectively as compensation within six

months, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Challenging the same, the respondent/accused has preferred Criminal

Appeal Nos. 9 and 8 of 2007 before the learned IV Additional Sessions

Judge, Chennai, which were allowed on 07.12.2007, thereby, reversing

the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the

Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the complainant.

3. Ms.G.Sumithra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that though, the Trial Court convicted the accused, on

appeals, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction and

sentence on finding that the accused has produced the receipts to

prove pledging of gold jewels with the complainant, who is the Pawn

Broker and further, the accused has denied that any amount was

received by her for any other transaction. The learned counsel would

further submit that according to the accused, the cheques are only

given as a security measure, while pledging her jewels, which has

been misused by the complainant. Pointing out to the same, the

learned counsel would submit that immediately after the pledging of

gold jewels, the money was advanced,