Madras High Court
D.Nallaiah Peter : Revision vs K.Muthaiah on 30 November, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 30/11/2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.979 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.12038 of 2022
D.Nallaiah Peter : Revision Petitioner/
Respondent/Accused
Vs.
K.Muthaiah : Respondent/Petitioner/
Complainant
PRAYER:- This Criminal Revision has been filed
under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in
Crl.M.P No.2245 of 2022 in STC No.675 of 2020 on the file
of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable
Instrument Act, Tirunelveli and set aside the same and
pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja
For Respondent : Mr.R.Anand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking in order to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P No.2245 of 2022 in STC No.675 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act, Tirunelveli.
2.The facts in brief:-
The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that he has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the trial was undertaken, the complainant filed the impugned petition seeking permission of the court to produce the sale agreement that was entered into between the parties stating that at the time of filing the complaint, only the copy was available and now, the original has been traced out and he must be permitted to produce the original document.
3.That was resisted by the petitioner stating that it is an unregistered sale agreement lacking proper registration and also inviting stamp duty. On that ground, the above said petition was resisted. But https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 however, the trial court has found that there is no denial on the part of the accused with regard to the existence of such an sale agreement. More-over, it has been observed that only for collateral purpose, the said document has been sought to be produced ,which is not prohibited under law.
4.The correctness of the above order has been called in question in this revision.
5.Heard both sides.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this court reported in the case of Thangamuthu and others Vs. A.Jeyaraj (2019-4- L.W.-602) for the purpose of argument that the unregistered of the document cannot be permitted to be marked.
7.No doubt that unregistered sale agreement subsequent to the amendment of the Registration Act, 2004 cannot be entered into. But here, the issue is entirely different one. It is an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
8.The case of the complainant is that there was an sale agreement between himself and the accused for purchasing a property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.5,20,000/- and the sale agreement was also entered into, on 08/06/2017. He paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance amount. The balance amount has to be paid within six months. So because of the same, ordinance passed by the Registration Department over the registration of the document in respect of unapproved plots. So the sale agreement was not carried forward. So the accused promised to return the advance amount. Towards discharge of the above said advance amountonly, the disputed cheque was issued, on 25/05/2018. This is the factual background and the execution of the above said sale agreement has been disputed by the accused. So it is seen that the respondent herein wanted to produce the above said document as a collateral evidence. Now it is sought to be produced.
9.It is settled law that even an unregistered document can be marked for collateral purpose. Here, the main issue is with regard to the cheque and liability. For proving the above said collateral purpose only, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 above said document sought to be produced. So the ground on which, the petitioner now raised is out of place and cannot be accepted. Even though, there is some factual mistake committed by the trial court, while passing the order that there is no denial on the part of the petitioner of the execution of the above said sale agreement. But that will not affect the final decision. So in the light of the above said facts, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
10.In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30/11/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Negotiable Instrument Act, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.RC(MD)No.979 of 2022 30/11/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis