High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Revision regarding a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The revision petitioner failed to appear despite Registry directions to call the party, resulting in dismissal for default.
The Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed for default due to non-appearance of either party.
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 : 13.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.712 of 2016
Manohar
... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
K.R.Ekambaram ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section
397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.205 of 2014
dated 28.03.2016, confirming the judgment of conviction dated
09.07.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 15, in C.C.No.2606 of 2012 and
consequently, acquit the petitioner of the charges under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For Petitioner: No appearance
For Respondent: No appearance
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Case arise under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.The Trial Court viz., Fast Track Court No.III,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 15, has convicted
the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of one year and also directed to pay the cheque amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation within one month from the date of
order and in default to undergo one month imprisonment.
Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence the accused
has preferred Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.205 of 2014, before
the learned IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. The learned
Judge, by an order dated 28.03.2016, had dismissed the appeal
and hence the Criminal Revision Case.
3.Despite several adjournments, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner has not represented the case and hence,
on 18.08.2021, the Registry was directed to print the name of
the revision petitioner in the cause list. Even today there is
no representation for both the parties. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed for default.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
dua
To
1.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2.The Fast Track Court-III,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
Crl.R.C.No.712 of 2016
SR II(CO)
B.VC (06/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. should be allowed when the petitioner failed to appear despite directions.
How to dispose of a revision petition in default when neither the petitioner nor the respondent has representation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manohar
K.R.Ekambaram
RMT. Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court