Madras High Court
S. Rajendran vs M. Selvaraj on 15 December, 2014
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T. Selvam
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 15.12.2014 Coram :: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam Crl. R.C. No.1429 of 2011 S. Rajendran ... Petitioner -vs- M. Selvaraj ... Respondent Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order in C.A. No: 35 of 2010 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, dated 22.08.2011 confirming the judgment dated 09.04.2010 of the trial Court in S.T.C. No: 337 of 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar ****** O R D E R
This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing him to undergo one year S.I.
2. The respondent preferred a complaint informing that the petitioner and the respondent were doing transport business and the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to the respondent and therefore, he issued six cheques and that the cheques dated 28.03.2005 and 31.03.2005, which were for a value of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, when presented for payment, they were returned for Funds Insufficient and that even after notice, the petitioner has not replied and hence, the complaint was filed.
3. Before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself and marked eight exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any documents marked.
4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction, sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year S.I. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 35 of 2010 before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. Under judgment dated 22.08.2011, the appellate Court dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
6. The contention of the accused is that he kept signed cheques in his office which were lost. He admitted the signature in the cheques. The trial Court found that the accused had not even preferred a complaint before the police for the lost cheques. He did not advise the bank to stop payment if the lost cheques were presented for collection. The accused did not enter into the witness box to explain as to how the cheques went into the hands of the complainant. He did not reply to the notice sent by the complainant.
7. In the circumstances of the case, this Court would concur with the finding of the Courts below as the petitioner has failed to rebut the initial presumption which arises against him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A reading of the judgments of the Courts below inform a well balanced finding arrived at by them. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding rendered by the Courts below. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would make every endeavour to effect payment of the cheque amount and that he is taking sincere efforts to make payment by selling his properties.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, this Court, while confirming the conviction rendered by the Courts below, would alter the sentence imposed on the accused into one requiring the revision petitioner to effect payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh C.T.SELVAM, J.
and fifty thousand only) within a period of three months from today. In default, the petitioner shall undergo one year simple imprisonment. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
gp 15.12.2014
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No:II,
Namakkal.
2. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal.
Crl. R.C. No.1429 of 2011