Partly allowed

M/s. Surya Plastics v. K. Madhavan

Madras HC28 Jan 2020CRL MP(MD)/9222/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the incidental imprisonment sentence imposed on petitioners convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The substantive sentence remained intact pending the disposal of a criminal revision, subject to bail, deposit of cheque amount, and daily appearance.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of imprisonment sentence granted pending disposal of revision; petitioners directed to execute bail bond and deposit 30% of cheque amount; second petitioner exempted from surrender.

M/s. Surya Plastics Vs K. Madhavan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL MP(MD) No.9222 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth day of January Two Thousand Twenty

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.KRISHNAVALLI

¶6

CRL MP(MD) Nos.9222 and 9221 of 2019 IN CRL RC(MD) No.801 of 2019

¶7

1.M/S.SURYA PLASTICS,

¶8

REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR AND AUTHORIZED SINGNATORY R.MURALI @ MUTHUKUMARASAN

¶9

2.R.MURALI @ MUTHUKUMARESAN ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ ACCUSED IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶10

¶11

K.MADHAVAN ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶12

PRAYER IN CRL MP(MD)No.9222 of 2019 IN CRL RC(MD) No.801 of 2019:

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence of Imprisonment and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, in Crl.A.No.11 of 2019 by the Judgment dated 20.05.2019, by confirming the conviction Viz., a) 1^st petitioner's company is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default the 2^nd petitioner is directed to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment on behalf of the 1^st petitioner's company. b) One year simple imprisonment for the 2^nd petitioner and fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo 30 days Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur in C.C.No.354 of 2016 by the Judgment dated 04.02.2019 Aggrieved over the same.

¶14

PRAYER IN CRL MP(MD)No.9221 of 2019 IN CRL RC(MD) No.801 of 2019:

¶15

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to exempt the petitioner from surrender in pursuant to the Judgment dated 20.05.2019 by the Crl.A.No.11 of 2019 by by confirming the conviction Viz.,

¶16

a) 1^st petitioner's company is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL MP(MD) No.9222 of 2019

¶19

default the 2^nd petitioner is directed to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment on behalf of the 1^st petitioner's company. b) One year simple imprisonment for the 2^nd petitioner and fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo 30 days Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur in C.C.No.354 of 2016 by the Judgment dated 04.02.2019 Aggrieved over the same.

¶20

Order : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIYAN, Advocate for the petitioners in both petitions and of Mr.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent in both petitions, the court made the following common order:-

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been convicted by the trial Court for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, and the first petitioner's Company is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/in default the 2^nd petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days and the second petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days in C.C.No.354 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur.

¶22

2.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2019, dated 20.05.2019.

¶23

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioners and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶25

5.This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶26

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that certain infirmities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in this criminal revision and further the criminal revision is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are entitled to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

¶27

2/3

¶28

CRL MP(MD) No.9222 of 2019

¶29

7.Accordingly, the suspension of sentence petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the revision on the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on them

¶31

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur;

¶32

(ii) Since the cheque amount is Rs.7,00,000/- the petitioners are directed to deposit 30% of the same i.e a sum of Rs.2,10,000/(Rupees Two lakhs ten thousand only) to the credit of C.C.No.354 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶33

(iii) and on further condition that the 2^nd petitioner (Proprietor and Authorized Signatory of M/s.Surya Plastics) shall appear before the said Court daily at 10.30 a.m pending revision.

¶34

8.The 2^nd petitioner is exempted from surrendering before the trial Court for the purpose of furnishing sureties.

¶35

/ TRUE COPY /

¶36

/ /2020

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶38

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶39

¶40

1.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARUR.

¶41

2.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE/ FAST TRACK COURT AT MAGISTRATE LEVEL, KARUR.

¶42

3.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR DISTRICT

¶43

+1. C.C. to Mr.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIYAN Advocate SR.No.1677 +1. C.C. to Mr.S.GOKULRAJ Advocate SR.No.1656

¶44

CRL MP(MD) Nos.9222 and 9221 of 2019 IN

¶45

CRL RC(MD) No.801 of 2019

¶46

VSD

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TK/PN/SAR.2/29.01.2020/3P/6C

¶48

3/3

M/s. Surya Plastics v. K. Madhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Surya Plastics v. K. Madhavan

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Vs The Executive Magistrate Cum Deputy Commissioner of Police

Duraisingam Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Pounraj Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Balamurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Raymond Vs Anton Selva Kumar

Raja Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police