This revision sought to set aside a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court affirmed that respondent discharged initial burden and petitioner failed to rebut statutory presumption, thus dismissing the revision.
The criminal revision is dismissed; judgments of conviction and sentence confirmed; period of sentence at set off.
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.
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
Reshma
. .. Petitioner/accused
Versus
S.Sankaran . .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 16.03.2018 made in CA.No.275 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the judgment dated 05.09.2017 made in STC.No.199 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC No.II) Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.E.D.Sethupathi
1/6
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
ORDER
This criminal revision is filed against the judgment and conviction dated 16.03.2018 made in CA.No.275 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the judgment dated 05.09.2017 made in STC.No.199 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC No.II) Erode, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
the respondent lodged complaint.
Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
2/6
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court.
3/6
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
counsel for the respondent.
the signature found in the cheque and issuance of cheque. In fact, on receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner failed to reply to rebut the presumption by probable defence. Therefore, the respondent discharged his initial burden as required under Section 138 of NI Act and as such, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act comes in favour of the petitioner. Though it is rebuttable in nature by the accused through probable defence or atleast to create a shadow of doubt on the cheque that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner to the respondent in discharge of legally enforceable debt payable by her to the respondent, however the petitioner failed to rebut the same and as such, the courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the courts below.
judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the petitioner
4/6
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
for the purpose of sentencing her to undergo the conviction. It is also
directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner, if any, shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C. However, if the petitioner settles the amount in favour of the respondent, she is at liberty to approach this Court by way of proper petition.
01.11.2022
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok
5/6
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lok
To
1.The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate(FTC No.II) Erode.
Crl.RC.No.560 of 2018
01.11.2022
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conversion was proper under Section 397 r/w 401 CPC.
Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Reshma
S.Sankaran
G.K.Ilanjithayyaa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
