Dismissed

Martin Felix Celvia v. K.Kumar

Madras HC9 Sept 2014CRL RC/1209/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision by an accused convicted for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The court upheld the conviction, noting the petitioner failed to examine herself or adduce evidence to rebut the presumption of genuine transaction and misuse allegations. The revision was dismissed, and the accused was ordered into custody.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction confirmed; accused ordered into custody to serve remaining sentence.

Martin Felix Celvia Vs K.Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

The Appellant/Accused was directed to be release on bail in and by the order of this Court dated 30.8.2011 made in MP No.1 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.No.1209/2011 on the file of the High Court,Madras.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09.09.2014

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2011

¶8

Martin Felix Celvia …. PetitionerAppellate/Accused vs. K.Kumar …. Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶9

Criminal revision case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed in C.A.No.146 of 2010 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC-III), Virudhachalam, confirming the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in C.C.No.163 of 2008.

¶10

When the matter came up on 05.09.2014, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, Registry was directed to post the revision on 08.09.2014 under the caption 'for orders'. On 08.09.2014, at request of learned counsel for petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 09.09.2014, finally. Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing her to undergo 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 6 months S.I. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The respondent preferred a complaint informing that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and towards repayment thereof, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.320421 dated 12.03.2008. When presented for payment, the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement "insufficient funds". The respondent/ complainant caused statutory notice and the petitioner/accused has also received the same, but failed to effect repayment. Hence, in keeping with the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent/ complainant preferred a complaint.

¶14

Before the trial Court, the respondent examined himself and two other witnesses and marked five exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.

¶15

On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to undergo 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 6 months S.I. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Against the conviction, the petitioner moved C.A.No.146 of 2010 before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Virudhachalam, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 09.08.2011. There against this revision.

¶16

The trial Court found that the respondent/complainant, by adducing oral and documentary evidence, has proved that the accused has issued Ex.P1, cheque, towards discharging her liability. Though it was the accused's case that her husband was doing lorry transport business, that he had obtained loan from the complainant, that towards security therefor she has issued a blank cheque, that the same was misused by the complainant and that she has not borrowed any sum from the complainant, she has chosen not to examine herself or her husband to prove her case nor has she filed any document in support of her claim. The trial Court has found that even assuming that the accused's case was true, she should have filed a complaint against the complainant after receiving Ex.P4, legal notice issued by the complainant, or she should have caused a reply to such notice. Further, it was found that when the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., she only denied the borrowing and she has not raised any issue of misuse of cheque by the complainant. 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 her under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction.

¶17

In the result, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed. The concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

confirmed. The petitioner shall now be taken into custody towards serving the remaining portion of the sentence yet to be undergone by her.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msk/gm
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(FTC-III), Virudhachalam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Neyveli.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Cuddalore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CTK(CO)
km/14.10.
Crl.R.C.No.1209 of 2011

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Martin Felix Celvia v. K.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Felix Celvia v. K.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kabar @Abdul Kabar Vs K.Boominathan

Castrol India Ltd. Vs Pemier Steel& Allied Industrie

Venkata Saravanan Alias Vs the Inspector of Police

Bhushan Prasad Vs Food Inspector Sathyamangalam

Anandan @ Douglas Devananda Vs the Inspector of Police