Dismissed

Sasikaladevi v. Rajendiran

Madras HC9 Aug 2017CRL RC/1230/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Proceeding on perusal of records due to non-appearance of parties, the Court found no error in the lower courts' findings regarding the validity of the cheque dishonour and legal notice, and confirmed the conviction and compens

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, confirming the conviction, sentence, and compensation awarded to the complainant.

Sasikaladevi Vs Rajendiran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.RC.No.1230 of 2010

¶6

Sasikaladevi ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused Vs Rajendiran ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to allow the revision and set aside the judgement of the Additional District Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Tindivanam made in Crl.Appeal No.37 of 2009 dated 15.11.2010 and modifying the Judgement and confirm the compensation passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee in S.T.C.No.16 of 2007 dated 10.11.2009.

¶7

For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER

¶8

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment of learned Additional District Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Tindivanam made in Crl.Appeal No.37 of 2009 dated 15.11.2010.

¶9

There has been no representation for either side on the past two hearing dates, as also today. This Court proceeds to pass orders on perusal of records.

¶10

Respondent/complainant moved a prosecution informing that on 17.09.2004 petitioner/Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- and on 05.10.2004 the petitioner/accused issued a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, Cuddalore Branch, towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation, returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Respondent/complainant, following the procedures envisaged u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred a complaint. The complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.32 of 2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. Upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District & Sessions Judge, Gingee in S.T.C.No.16 of 2007.

¶11

Before trial Court, respondent/complainant examined himself as PW-1 and marked 5 exhibits. On the side of defence, 4 witnesses were examined and 5 exhibits were marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 10.11.2009, rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced petitioner/Accused to 3 months S.I. and fine of Rs.55,000/- as compensation, i/d 15 days S.I. There against, petitioner/Accused preferred Crl.A.No.37 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tindivanam and the trial Court's conviction and sentence for 3 months S.I. and the payment of compensation of Rs.55,000/- towards complainant and granted one month time for payment i.e., by 16.12.2010, was confirmed, one week S.I. Was imposed in default of payment of compensation, under judgment dated 15.11.2010. Hence, this revision.

¶12

In convicting petitioner/Accused, Courts below

¶13

have found that:-

¶14

I. legal notice dated 13.12.2004 was issued by complainant to accused. On 27.12.2004 complainant received back the returned legal notice and thereafter, accused failed to make payment to complainant within 15 days. Therefore, cause of action arose for non payment of money within 15 days. After that, on 11.2.2005 complainant filed the written complaint against accused before learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

¶15

II.Accused has taken defence that on 5.7.2004, she issued 3 blank cheques to the wife of the complainant viz., Mailammal. The said defence cannot be considered, since Ex.A1 cheque bears complainant's name with date of 5.10.2004. She failed to prove that on 5.7.2004, the blank signed cheque has been drawn in favour of the wife of the complainant.

¶16

III.The evidence of Dws-1 to 4 have been considered by the Courts below in proper perspective while convicting the appellant.

¶17

Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgments under challenge.

¶18

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

kmi

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The Additional District Sessions Judge,

¶27

FTC No.1, Tindivanam.

¶28

The Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.

¶29

Crl.RC.No.1230 of 2010
PVS(CO)
GN(07/12/2017)

¶30

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

Sasikaladevi v. Rajendiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikaladevi v. Rajendiran

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.C.Mahendran Vs State by

M/S.Rtc Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

Dr. S. Rajagopal, Age 52 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

Vijarajan Vs State Rep by

V.Latha Vs a.Natesan

Bharath Engineering Vs M/S.Lavanya Hotels Pvt.Ltd.