Under revision under Cr.P.C. 397 r/w 401, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the High Court of Madras under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding no perversity in the evidence appreciated by lower courts.
Judgments of both Courts below are hereby confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2021
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.463 & 465 of 2019
Mohana D'Souza
...Petitioner / Accused
Vs
B.Elangovan
...Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 12.10.2018 made in C.A.No.207 of 2018 passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 28.03.2018 made in C.C.No.932 of 2011, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sivanesan
For Respondent : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused. The respondent is the complainant. The respondent filed complaint in C.C.No.932 of 2011 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai. The learned Magistrate had taken the complaint on file and after enquiry, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation to the complainant, in default of payment of compensation to the complainant, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
come forward to pay the amounts claimed within one month from the date of receipt of notice. Instead of that, the accused sent a reply dated 20.12.2010, accepting her liability. But, in the said reply, the accused had stated that she availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and also stated that the cheques were given as security. The allegations are frivolous and above cheques were not given as security. To prove the averments made in the complaint, on the side of the respondent/complainant, complainant examined himself as P.W.1. and 13 documents were marked and the petitioner/accused has not denied the signatures and the only defence taken by the petitioner is that there are discrepancies in the loan amount paid by the respondent/complainant and the loan amount received by the petitioner/accused and the conviction is based on the document in Ex.P6, which is reply notice issued by the petitioner/accused to answer the demand notice issued by the respondent/complainant, which was invalid before the eye of law. However, to disprove the said contention, the petitioner/accused has not producd any document and hence, the learned appellate Judge, rejected the said contention.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
+1cc to Mr.M.Baskaran, Advocate Sr.No.33872
Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.Nos.463 & 465 of 2019
MG(CO) RVM(19/08/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts convicting the accused.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohana D'Souza
B. Elangovan
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
