Crl.RC.No.981 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2017

Rajanpuri

Proprietor: Prince of Foot wear

...Petitioner

Vs

Ravindrakumar Agarwal

Proprietor: Ravindra Agency

...Respondent

Prayer:- Criminal Revision petition has been filed, under Section 397 r/w

401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgement dated 8.06.2017 passed in

C.A.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions, Magalir Neethi

Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, Erode District confirming the

judgement dated 29.08.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Court No.II, Erode by allowing the

present Criminal Revision Petition.

1/11

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

Crl.RC.No.981 of 2017

For Petitioner

: Mr.I.C.Vasudevan

For Respondent

: Mr. C.Ramkumar

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the

Judgement passed in C.A.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the Additional

Sessions, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode

District, confirming the judgement dated 29.08.2016 passed in

S.T.C.No.210 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track)

Court No.II, Erode.

2.The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, alleging that he had given a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees

Five Lakhs only) to the accused/petitioner herein and towards the discharge

2/11

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

Crl.RC.No.981 of 2017

of the said loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs only) dated 18.01.2012; that the cheque was presented

for collection and was returned by the Bank for the reason ''Funds

insufficient''; then he had issued a statutory notice to the correct address

and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ''not claimed''.

The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.

The petitioner examined one witness on his side and marked five

documents. The petitioner's defence during the trial was that the cheque

was not issued in discharge of his liability, and it was issued only as a

security.

3.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side,

the trial Court by the judgement dated 29.10.2016 in S.T.C.No.210 of 2012

convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three

3/11

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

Crl.RC.No.981 of 2017

months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the

Additional Sessions, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court),

Erode District in C.A.No.80 of 2017 and the same was dismissed and

confirmed the judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent

findings of the Courts below, the accused has preferred the present

Criminal Revision.

4.Heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner and Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that

the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner, without considering the

material fact that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the cheque

was given only as security. Learned Counsel further submit that in the

complaint, the respondent stated that the cheque was issued for discharge of

4/11

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

Crl.RC.No.981 of 2017

loan amount. Further, in the cross examination he admits that the cheque

was issued only as security for repayment of the said amount. He further

submit that the complainant/respondent did not establish the fact that he

had sufficient means to advance the loan amount.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit

that the compl