Madras High Court
C. Mahesh S/O. Chellappan vs R. Gnanapalam S/O. Ramagurusamy on 3 November, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl. R.C. (MD) No.317 of 2019
and
Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos.4614, 4615, 8314 & 8315 of 2019
C. Mahesh S/o. Chellappan ... Petitioner / accused
Vs.
R. Gnanapalam S/o. Ramagurusamy ... Respondent /
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order in C.A. No.
64 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Palani dated 08.02.2019 by reversing the judgment made in C.C. No.86 of
2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani dated
03.03.2017.
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr. T. Lenin Kumar
For Respondent : Mr. M. Ponniah.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision in Crl. R.C. (MD) No.317 of 2019 has been preferred by the appellant as against the Judgment and conviction in C.A. No.64 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani dated 08.02.2019, wherein the Appellate Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 3 months of Simple Imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within 2 months from the date of order and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by reversing the judgment made in C.C. No.86 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 03.03.2017.
2. In the trial Court, the respondent herein had filed a cheque complaint as against this petitioner in C.C. No.86 of 2015. In the said case, the petitioner herein was acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the above said judgmente, the 2/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 respondent herein, i.e., the complainant had preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 64 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani. The Appellate Court had allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment of Trial Court and convicted the accused for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As against the said judgment and conviction, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.
3. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused is the friend of the complainant and thereby for the urgent expenses, the accused herein borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the complainant. For that, the accused had issued a cheque of Dhanalaxmi Bank, Palani Branch, bearing No.033480 dated 30.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned as 'insufficient funds' on the same day with a return memo. Thereafter, on 10.06.2015, the complainant had issued notice to the accused through his counsel and the same was received by the accused. After receipt of notice, the accused neither sent any reply nor repaid any amount. Therefore, the petitioner/accused, knowing very well that there is no sufficient fund in his bank account, in order cheat the respondent/complainant had issued the 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 cheque and therefore the accused had committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Thereafter, copies of documents relied on the side of complainant, were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and then the substance of charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been explained to the accused and the accused denied the same, thereby the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked. On the side of accused, DW1 to DW3 were examined and no documents were marked. After completion of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him during the course of trial and the same was also denied by the petitioner/accused as false. Thereafter, the trial Court had acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by holding that the complainant failed to prove the source of income and the complainant had failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. Therefore the Trial Court has acquitted the accused.
4/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
5. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal in C.A. No.64 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions and District Court, Palani and the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo 3 months of Simple Imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation within 2 months under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo a further one month Simple Imprisonment.
6. Aggrieved upon the above said Judgment and conviction, the present revision has been preferred by the sole accused / petitioner on the following grounds:-
6(i) The Judgment and conviction of the Appellate Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
6(ii) The Appellate Court, without adverting to the evidences and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has reversed the judgment of the trial Court.
6(iii) The trial Court had acquitted the accused by holding that 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 the complainant failed to prove his source of income. Whereas the Appellate Court has given perverse finding as if the respondent proved the source of income, but did not assign any reason for reversing the judgment of the Trial Court.
Absolutely there is no evidence let in by the respondent / complainant to prove the source of income.
6(iv) During the time of occurrence, the complainant had lent money to 3 more persons totalling to Rs.17,10,000/-. While so, only if the complainant is questioned about the source of his income, the onus will be shifted upon the complainant. The complainant failed to prove the source of income. When the complainant failed to prove the same, the Appellate Court ought to have confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
6(v) The Appellate Court, erred in allowing the appeal without canvassing the main ground raised by the petitioner.
6(vi) The respondent / complainant failed to prove that on what circumstances and hope, he lent such huge amount to the petitioner/accused.6/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 6(vii) The respondent / complainant, during his cross examination, has stated that he is not an income-tax assessee and hence he failed prove to the source of his income.
6(viii) The other reasons given by the Appellate Court for convicting the petitioner / accused are not sustainable in law and therefore it is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein obtained loan for a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant 5 years back and he paid interest @ 10% per month for the last 3 years and thereafter he was unable to pay the interest amount and he was ready to pay the principal amount of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent / complainant, but the complainant refused to receive the said amount. At the time of borrowal of amount, the respondent/complainant had obtained unfilled blank cheque with signature and unfilled blank promissory note with the signature of the petitioner/accused. Thereafter the complainant, by filling Rs.9 lakhs in the blank cheque, falsely lodged this complaint. By misusing the above said blank cheque and promissory note, given for the purpose of security, the present complaint has been filed by the 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 complainant. The complainant has no means to pay the cheque amount and there is no need for the petitioner to borrow such a huge amount. The cheque was not given for any legally enforceable debt.
7.1. In order to prove the contentions of the petitioner, he examined DW1 to DW3. DW1 and DW2 are the debtors of the complainant, who borrowed the amount for higher rate of interest and they deposed about the borrowal of money from the complainant for 10% interest per month. DW3 is the accused and he also deposed before the Trial Court about the borrowal of loan by him from the complainant and about the payment of interest and that loan was borrowed prior before 5 years from the date of examination and the complainant herein was examined as PW1 and he, in his cross examination, has admitted that he has already filed so many cases against various persons and thereby, the complainant is doing money lending business and he failed to furnish his income tax returns and failed to prove the source of income. The Trial Court, after an elaborate discussion, has acquitted the accused, but the Appellate Court, without giving any reason and without considering the evidence adduced on both sides, wrongly allowed the appeal and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, the judgment and conviction passed in the appeal are liable to set aside and the judgment of the trial Court is to be restored, by allowing this revision petition.
7.2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
7.2.1. Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1053.
7.2.2. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in Criminal Appeal No.1502 of 2005.
7.2.3. Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 529.
7.2.4. Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 2 MLJ (Crl) 327 (SC).
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / complainant would contend that the petitioner/accused has not denied the signature 9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 found in the cheque and the respondent/complainant was examined as PW1 and he deposed about the issuance of cheque and presentation of cheque for clearance and about the return without sufficient fund. Once the accused admitted the signature of the cheque, the rebuttal of presumption is lies on the petitioner / accused and the accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the accused and the Trial Court without considering the above said aspects, wrongly acquitted the accused by holding that the petitioner has no means to pay the above said amount. But the complainant, in his evidence, stated that he has an agricultural land and also he is doing coconut and paddy business, thereby he is earning a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per annum and apart from that, he is receiving rent through the buildings. Therefore the complainant has proved his financial capacity and source of income. Hence the Appellate Court has rightly held that the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove the financial capacity of the complainant and based on the evidences adduced on both sides, the Appellate Court has correctly convicted the accused and set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore there is no need of 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 interference of this Court by way of allowing this revision petition and therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record, the Judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the grounds of revision.
10. Now the point for determination in this revision petition is whether the judgment and conviction in C.A. No.64 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani dated 08.02.2019 by reversing the judgment made in C.C. No.86 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 03.03.2017are sustainable in law and on facts.
11. Point:- The case of the complainant / respondent before the Trial Court is that the petitioner / accused is the friend of the respondent / complainant and thereby for the urgent expenses, the petitioner / accused herein borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the respondent / complainant. For that, the petitioner / accused had issued a cheque of Dhanalaxmi Bank, 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 Palani Branch, bearing No.033480 dated 30.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned as 'insufficient funds' on the same day with a return memo. Thereafter, on 10.06.2015, the respondent / complainant had issued a notice to the accused through his counsel and the same was received by the petitioner / accused. After receipt of notice, the accused neither sent any reply nor repaid any amount. Therefore, the petitioner/accused, knowing very well that there is no sufficient fund in his bank account, in order to cheat the respondent/complainant had issued the cheque and therefore the petitioner/ accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. The case of the petitioner / accused is that the respondent / complainant was doing money lending business and the petitioner / accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the respondent / complainant before 5 years and for that, he paid interest @ 10% per month for three years and due to his illness, he was unable to pay the interest further and he was ready to pay the principal amount of Rs.1 lakh, which was borrowed by him but the complainant refused to receive the same. Therefore the said complaint 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 was lodged by the respondent / complainant against this petitioner / accused with false allegations by filling the amount of Rs.9 lakhs in the unfilled blank cheque, which was obtained by the respondent / complainant, at the time of borrowal of Rs.1 lakh by the petitioner/accused. The respondent / complainant used to demand more interest and he has filed so many cases against so many persons by demanding more money. The petitioner / accused has no occasion to borrow such a huge amount filled in the cheque and further the complainant/petitioner has no means to pay the above said amount and there is no legally enforceable debt.
13. In order to prove the case of the complainant / respondent herein, PW1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked. The respondent / PW1 has deposed in his evidence about the borrowal of money, issuance of cheque, presentation for clearance and about the return of the cheque. On the side of petitioner / accused, DW1 to DW3 were examined. The main contention of the petitioner/accused is that the cheque was not issued for the legally enforceable debt and the complainant has no means to pay the such a huge amount. In this context, PW1 has not witnessed about his financial capacity and the amount involved in this case is Rs.9 lakhs. 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
14. The accused is working as Archagar in Palani Temple. While so, without any document, how the complainant paid such a huge amount to the Archagar has to be explained by the complainant. Apart from that, when the accused particularly questioned about the financial capacity of the complainant, it is duty of the complainant to prove that he has means to pay the said amount. In order to prove the financial capacity to pay such a huge amount to the accused, the complainant has failed to produce any documents and the complainant has not even produced the income tax returns as an income tax assessee. Particularly, PW1 during his cross examination, has stated that he is having an agricultural land and he is doing coconut and Paddy business and thereby he is earning a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per annum. But, he has admitted in his cross examination that, he is not an income tax assessee and he has not paid any income tax and further, the accused has not even know that where the accused is residing. Further, the respondent / complainant in his evidence has stated that the accused has promised to repay the money after selling his house. If it is so, it is the duty of the complainant to explain as to where the house is situated and when the accused promised him to pay the amount after selling the house. While so, 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 the complainant / respondent can very well obtain any other documents from the accused when he gave such a huge amount to the petitioner/accused herein. But, there is no such proof from the complainant that he had obtained any document from the accused. Though the accused admitted the issuance of cheque, his main contention is that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.1 lakh prior to 5 years from the date of petition and at that time, the complainant obtained his signature in the blank unfilled cheque and promissory note and now the respondent / complainant has filed this cheque case by filling the blank cheque for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs. Though the accused admitted his signature, his main contention is that it was issued for security purpose and not paid for a legally enforceable debt and it was not issued for such a huge amount. While so, it is the duty of the complainant to prove his financial capacity to pay such a huge amount, but in this case, there is no such evidence to prove the same. Further in order to prove the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to satisfy the foundational facts with regard to the acquittance of the accused and the payment made by the accused. But in this case, the financial capacity has not been proved by the complainant. 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
15. On the side of petitioner / accused, DW1 to DW3 were examined before the trial Court. DW1 and DW2 had deposed that the loan was borrowed by them from the complainant, but the evidences are no way connected to decide the case in favour of the accused. Because the main contention of the accused is that he had already obtained money, for that he issued the cheque as security. But the evidence of DW1 and DW2 are relating to the loan obtained by them from the complainant. The main contention of the petitioner / accused is that the respondent / petitioner has no means to pay such a huge amount. Thereby, the complainant has to prove his financial capacity, but he has failed to prove the financial capacity. The trial Court has also elaborately discussed the evidences adduced on both sides and fairly came to the conclusion that the financial capacity of the complainant has not been proved and failed to prove that the cheque was issued for the legally enforceable debt. The Appellate Court has discussed about the suggestions made by the counsel for the accused and answers given by the complainant during the course of cross examination of PW1 but at the same time, the complainant has failed to produce any documents to prove his financial capacity and the complainant is not even an income tax assessee when he was earning Rs.20 lakhs per 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 year through rent and business. While so, it is the duty of the respondent / complainant to prove his financial capacity to pay such a huge amount to the petitioner/accused. But the Appellate Court has failed to consider the same and only based on the answers given for the suggestions made by the counsel for the accused at the time of cross examination, passed the judgment and by wrongly holding that the complainant has proved the case and failed to consider the foundational facts with regard to the payment and the financial capacity of the complainant has not been proved.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused has relied upon the following judgments:
16(i) Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 2 MLJ (Crl) 327 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"28. We are of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the accused, within 2 years, amount of Rs.18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence. The observation of the High Court that Trial Court's finding that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity of lending money is perverse cannot be supported. We fail to see that how the Trial Court's findings can be termed as 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 perverse by the High Court when it was based on consideration of the evidence, which was led on behalf of the defence. This Court had occasion to consider the expression "perverse" in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary AIR 2010 SC 589 : (2009) 10 SCC 636: LNIND 2009 SC 1701, this Court held that although High Court can reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court but judgment of acquittal can be interfered with only judgment is against the weight of evidence. In Paragraph No.14 following has been held:-
"14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr. Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the Trial Court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court but only in a case when the judgment of the Trial Court is stated to be perverse. The word "perverse" in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean "against the weight of evidence". We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the Trial Court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so".
On careful perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that when the financial capacity of the complainant was questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. In the case on hand also, the petitioner / accused has specifically questioned the financial capacity of the complainant, thereby, the complainant has to prove his 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 financial capacity. But the complainant has failed to prove the same. The above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.
16(ii) Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1053.
- wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The principle to be followed by Appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so".
In the case on hand, also the Trial Court has acquitted the accused, but the Appellate Court without giving any reasons convicted the accused.
16(iii) State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta reported in Criminal Appeal No.1502 of 2005.
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"12. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience".
On careful perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that there is no substantial difference between the appeal against conviction and the appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal as against the acquittal, the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with.
In this case on hand also, the Trial Court has given reasons for the 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 acquittal by holding that the complainant has not proved his financial capacity and thereby, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court without assigning any reasons.
16(iv) Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 529 -
Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraph 6, has held as follows:-
"6. The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such re- appreciation. The High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re-appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous".
On careful perusal of the above said judgment, it is clear that when the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has reasonably given its judgment by holding that the complainant has not proved his case.
22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019
17. Therefore as discussed supra and in view of the above said judgments, this Court is of the opinion that, the Trial Court has correctly analysed the evidences and passed a reasoned judgment by holding that the respondent / complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity and the accused has probabilised his defence. Per contra, the Appellate Court without giving any reason to set aside the judgment of the trial court, simply relied on the answers given by the accused for suggestions, during the cross examination, wrongly held that the complainant has proved his financial capacity.
18. Therefore the judgment and conviction of the Appellate Court are unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the Trial Court judgment is liable to be restored.
19. In the result, this Criminal Revision petition is allowed and the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani in C.A. No.64 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019 is hereby set aside and the judgment made in C.C. No.86 of 2015 by the learned 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani dated 03.03.2017 is restored and the accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he be set at liberty subject to other cases if any. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded to him.
20. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.11.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case :Yes/No mjs To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani.
2. The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Palani. 24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 P.DHANABAL., J.
mjs Crl.R.C.(MD) No.317 of 2019 03.11.2023 25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis