Madras High Court
Meenakshiammal vs M.Murugavel on 1 April, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.RC.No.340 of 2019
Meenakshiammal Petitioner
Vs
M.Murugavel Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, against judgment made in the Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2017
passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge at Thiruvarur, confirming the
judgment dated 24.05.2017 in C.C.No.172 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment dated 13.07.2018 made in Crl.A.No.41 of 2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, at Thiruvarur, FTC Mahila confirming the Judgment dated 24.05.2017 made in C.C.No.172 of 2011 passed by the learned Fast Track Judicial Magistrate of Thiruthuraipoondi.
2 The revision petitioner is the complainant and the respondent is the http://www.judis.nic.in 2 accused. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondent/accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruthuraipoondi in C.C.No.172 of 2011. After completing the trial proceedings the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. As against the said Judgment the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, in Crl.A.No.41 of 2017. After hearing of the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruvarur, dismissed the said appeal. As against the jusgment of acquittal the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.
3 The case of the petitioner is that a Cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn by the respondent in favour of the petitioner/complainant by discharging his liability and when it was presented before the Bank the same was returned by the bank for want of “ sufficient funds”. When the petitioner sent statutory notice to the respondent was called upon to make the payment of the said amount but he failed to make the payment whereby the petitioner deemed to have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 4 After taking cognizance of the complaint and completing the legal formalities, in order to prove the case of the petitioner, one witness was examined and five documents were marked. After completion of petitioner side evidence when the incriminating materials culled out and put before the respondent he denied the same as false and also on the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and one document was marked.
5 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the cheque dated 11.02.2006 was issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner in order to discharge the amount to the petitioner and hence the initial burden was proved that the impugned cheque dated 11.02.2006 bearing cheque No.268471 for Rs.2,00,000/- was issued by the respondent to discharge legally enforceable debt. The said cheque was revalidated by the respondent on his own volition as he could not pay the cheque amount within the period of its validation. The cheque was altered as 11.02.2009 by the respondent himself within its period of limitation and as to make it effective and legally valid signature was put by the respondent himself beneath the date of the cheque. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the signature of the respondent beneath the date was not of the respondent on the basis of the report of the finger print expert, evidence is not the conclusive proof and on the basis of the report the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 above case cannot be decided. It is pertinent to note that the finger print expert has collected the materials of the respondent, only in the year 2012 while the signature in the cheque was put in by the respondent in the year 2006. It is apparent that the signature of a common man would naturally vary in a period of five years. This basic fact was not taken note of the Courts below. Hence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays to allow this Criminal Revision Case.
6 Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.
7 It is the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner/complainant had filed private complaint stating that a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn by the respondent in favour of the petitioner by discharging his liability, was returned by the bank for want of “sufficient funds” when presented before the bank for collection. The petitioner sent statutory notice to the respondent, where upon he was called upon to make the payment of the said amount but he failed to make the payment whereby the respondent have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and an agreement dated 06.02.2005 was marked as Ex.P1. A cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner/complainant for Rs.2,00,000/- was http://www.judis.nic.in 5 marked as Ex.P2. Returned Memo from the bank was marked as Ex.P3. Notice issued by the advocate for the petitioner was marked as Ex.P4 and the acknowledgment card for the receipt of the notice by the respondent was marked as Ex.P5. The hand writing Expert was examined as D.W.1 and marked the report and opinion of the handwriting Expert as Ex.D1. The cheque was marked as Ex.P2. On a perusal of the Ex.P2, reveals that the date of the cheque was written as 11.02.2006 and thereafter the year 2006 is strick out and is written above it as 2009 and has been appended a signature below it. According to the respondent, the alteration has not been made by him and the signature below is not that of him. Once the respondent has denied the fact that the year has not been changed by him, the expert opinion also confirmed that the signature found in the alteration of the year is not that of the respondent. It is for the petitioner to establish the same that the respondent only alter the year and the signature is that of him. When the appellate Court is the final Court of fact finding Court and it re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot sit in the arm chair of the appellate Court and re asses the entire evidence and substitute its own view. Unless, there is any perversity finds in the appreciation of evidence done by the Courts below. On reading of the materials this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment of the appellate Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 8 Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court feels that there is no merit in the revision and both the Courts below have given sufficient reasons to dismiss the complaint as against the respondent herein. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of both the Courts below.
9 In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed in the admission stage itself.
01.04.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sbn To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur.
P.VELMURUGAN.J http://www.judis.nic.in 7 sbn Crl.RC.No.340 of 2019 01.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in