Dismissed

Rayappan v. Sri Renganathan

Madras HC3 Mar 2015CRL RC(MD)/723/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court rejected the argument that a Non-Resident Indian account cheque was invalid and upheld the lower courts' findings against the accused who refused to pay the debt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court; bail bonds cancelled; accused directed to secure custody for remaining imprisonment.

Rayappan Vs Sri Renganathan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP

¶3

Petition viz., Rayappan S/O.Antony Muthu Nadar, was directed to be released on bail by order of this Court dated 05.09.2011, made in MP(MD) No. 1 of 2011 in Crl.Rc. (MD)No. 723 of 2011

¶4

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶5

DATED: 03.03.2015

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶8

CRL.RC.(MD)No.723 of 2011

¶9

A.Rayappan : Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

W.Sri Renganathan : Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, in S.T.C.No.1678 of 2006, vide his Judgment dated 10.03.2011, which has been subsequently confirmed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in C.A.No.68 of 2010, vide his Judgment dated 01.07.2011 and set aside the same and consequently acquit the petitioner honourably.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

¶16

The Revision Petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.C.No.1678 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. The respondent/private complainant has filed the said case seeking prosecution of the Revision Petitioner/Accused under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, [for brevity, "the Act"]. The Trial Court, after full-fledged enquiry, has found him guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Act, and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent/private complainant. The petitioner, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, has filed C.A.No.68 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Additional District Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli and the Lower Appellate Court, vide Judgment dated 01.07.2011, has confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Accused, would vehemently contend that the cheque in question has been drawn in a non-resident Indian Account and therefore, it cannot

¶18

¶19

be used by the respondent/private complainant and would further contend that there is a discrepancy in the signature itself and the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court has overlooked the very many infirmities in the case projected by the respondent/private complainant and erroneously convicted and sentenced the Revision Petitioner/Accused and prays for interference.

¶20

Per contra, Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/private complainant would contend that the Courts below, on proper application of mind to the oral and documentary evidences, have rightly recorded sentence and convicted the Revision Petitioner/Accused for the commission of offence under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Act and therefore, the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below need not be interfered with, lightly.

¶21

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the typed set of documents.

¶22

According to the respondent/private complainant, the Revision Petitioner/Accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from him, on 01.07.2005, to meet out certain family expenses and promised to return the same by 30.01.2006 and since he has failed to keep up his promise, the respondent/private complainant has demanded the said amount and at that juncture, he has issued a cheque dated 27.02.2006, for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India, Mukkoodal Branch. The said cheque, on presentation by the respondent/private complainant, got dishonoured and a return memo dated 27.05.2006, was also given to him, marked as EX-P2 and EX-P3. The respondent/private complainant, through his lawyer, has sent a statutory notice, dated 10.03.2006, marked as EX-P4 and it was acknowledged by the Revision Petitioner/Accused, marked as EX-P5. But, he did not give any reply and repay the amount payable to him.

¶23

During the course of trial, the respondent/private complainant examined himself as PW-1 and marked EX-P1 to EX-P5. The Revision Petitioner/Accused was questioned under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating evidences tendered by the respondent/private complainant and he denied it as false. On his behalf, one Shanmugaraj was examined as DW-1 and no documents were marked.

¶24

The defence projected by the Revision Petitioner/Accused was that since the cheque in question has been drawn in a Non-resident Indian Account, it cannot be used to draw the money. The fact remains that the bank official was examined and he would state that DW-1 was a retired employee and has deposed that only if there is remittance from abroad, such cheque can be used for withdrawing the amount. But, he has further deposed that he was not aware at the time of issuance of cheque that the Revision Petitioner/Accused was in abroad and also not aware as to whether the cheque in question has been misutilized by the Revision Petitioner/Accused. It is also pertinent to point out, at this juncture, that the cheque in question has been returned on the ground of insufficient funds and not on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the signature and though the respondent/private complainant has sent a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statutory notice, marked as EX-P4, the Revision Petitioner/Accused did not give any reply and repay the amount. The Courts below have considered the

¶25

¶26

oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and the Lower Appellate Court, on an independent application of mind to the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the conviction, sentence and compensation awarded by the Trial Court are to be confirmed.

¶27

This Court, upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusing the impugned Judgments, is of the view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Lower Appellate Court and the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 01.07.2011 made in C.A.No.68 of 2010.

¶28

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Accused would submit that this Court, vide order dated 05.09.2011, has granted suspension of sentence of imprisonment subject to the condition that the Revision Petitioner/Accused shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of S.T.C.No.1678 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and it was also deposited. Since the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, the respondent/private complainant is permitted to withdraw the said amount.

¶29

In view of the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case, bail bonds executed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused stand cancelled and the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, is directed to take expeditious and necessary steps to secure the custody of the Revision Petitioner/Accused to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

sub Assistant Registrar(c.s)

¶34

¶35

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

2.The Additional District Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.I], Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

+1cc to M/S.R.ANAND, Advocate in SR.No. 10104

¶38

+1cc to M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM ,Advocate in SR.No. 10678

¶39

TS/12.03.2015/3P-5C

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER MADE IN CRL.RC.(MD)No.723 of 2011 DATED – 03.03.2015

Rayappan v. Sri Renganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayappan v. Sri Renganathan

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

K.P.T.Stalin Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Selvaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajagopal Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sheirk @ Sheik Usman Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Jeyarani Vs the Inspector of Police

Sethuraman Vs Krishnan Chettiar