Madras High Court
G.Karuppasamy vs M.Sahayaraj on 14 July, 2017
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C(MD).No.814 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 G.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner/Complainant -Vs- M.Sahayaraj ... Respondent/Accused Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order made in Cr.M.P.No.10728 of 2010 in C.C.No.234 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, dated 07.10.2010. !For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh ^For Respondent : Mr.P.Mani Anandh :ORDER
The petitioner is complainant in a private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.The above complaint has been given on the ground that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for his family expenses and in order to discharge the loan, a cheque has been given and when the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned stating 'Insufficient funds'. Thereafter, after complying with all the legal formalities, the present complaint has been given by the petitioner.
3.During the course of trial, by examining the Bank Manager, it came to notice of the Court that the respondent/accused, by using the cheque of his father, has committed a fraud. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has altered the charge under Section 138 of N.I Act into 420 I.P.C, based on a petition filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C, by the petitioner/complainant. That order was not challenged by the respondent/accused. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 217 Cr.P.C for re- examining himself, in view of the alteration of charge. The court below dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed.
3.I have heard Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Mani Anandh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records carefully.
4.Admittedly, the Court below has altered the charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. In that event, the Court should give an opportunity to the complainant under Section 217 Cr.P.C to let in evidence. Under Section 217 Cr.P.C, the complainant has every right to re-examine himself. Hence, the order is totally illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
5.In the result, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, dated 07.10.2010 in in Cr.M.P.No.10728 of 2010 in C.C.No.234 of 2010 is set aside. Hence, this Revision is allowed and the Court below is directed to recall the petitioner/P.W.1 and proceed with the trial. Since C.C.No.234 of 2010 is pending for more than 7 years, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.
.