Crl.R.C(MD)No.644 of 2016

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON

: 29.03.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 31.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.644 of 2016

and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.8749 & 8750 of 2016

Raman

... Petitioner/

Appellant/Accused

Vs.

Ravichandran

... Respondent/

Respondent/ Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the

records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the

petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri in C.C.No.12 of

2014, dated 05.12.2015 and confirmed by the learned II Additional

District Judge (FAC), Trichy in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2016, dated

23.08.2016 and acquit the petitioner.

For Petitioner

: Mr.RM.Sivakumar

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Vinayak

1/14

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

Crl.R.C(MD)No.644 of 2016

ORDER

This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed

in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016, on the file of

the learned II Additional District Judge (FAC), Trichy, confirming the

Judgment passed in C.C.No.12 of 2014, dated 05.12.2015, on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.

2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged

by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner

borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as cash from the respondent on

15.09.2013 and he promised to return the same within two months.

However, the petitioner failed to return the said sum as promised by

him. The respondent made demands to pay the said amount.

Subsequently, in order to repay the said amount, on 14.11.2013,

the petitioner issued a cheque for the said sum in favour of the

respondent. It was presented for collection and the same was

returned dishonoured for the reason that the 'funds insufficient'.

2/14

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

Crl.R.C(MD)No.644 of 2016

Thereafter, the respondent caused statutory notice and lodged the

complaint.

4.On the side of the respondent, he himself was

examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and on the side of the

petitioner, he had examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked Ex.D.1 to

Ex.D.15.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo five

months Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-

and in default, he shall undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in

Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional

District Judge (FAC), Trichy and the same was also dismissed

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.

3/14

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

Crl.R.C(MD)No.644 of 2016

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner never borrowed any loan as alleged by

the respondent herein. Therefore, the alleged cheque was not

issued for any legally enforceable debt. In fact, the respondent had

issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act on 20.06.2013, thereby calling upon the petitioner

to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in pursuant to the dishonour of

cheque bearing No.156938 for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the said

notice, further alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.02.2013 and in order to repay the said

amount, he issued a cheque on 14.06.2013. However, after

issuance of a notice, there was no initiation of a complaint under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While being so,

again the respondent had lent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-