High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. by an accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act, holding the lower courts' findings regarding the impossibility of full payment exceeding the sale price to be sound.
The Criminal Revision Case Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014 was dismissed.
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.
BAIL SLIP
The Petitioner/Accused Balu, Male was directed to be released on Bail vide Order dated 02/07/2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL.R.C.NO.624 OF 2014
Balu
Versus
LIP Marketing, Rep. by Ramesh Rai.
PRAYER:-
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the case in C.A.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 14.08.2012, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.471 of 2008, dated 10.06.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and set aside the same and acquit the appellant.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Janarathanam
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.624 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, dated 10.06.2010 in C.C.No.471 of 2008, thereby, convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
imposing a sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month Simple Imprisonment and the judgment of the learned I Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, dated 14.08.2012 in Crl.A.No.40 of 2010, thereby, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
case of the petitioner/accused, the Trial Court found that once the signature in the cheque, as having admitted and the presumption under Section 139 read with 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also come to the aid of the complainant, the complainant has proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond any doubt and sentenced the petitioner/accused as aforesaid.
considered findings of the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court in this revisional jurisdiction.
and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
grs
To
The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High court, Madras – 104.
CRL.R.C.NO.624 OF 2014
MT(CO) PBS/08/02/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence in the cheque dishonour case ought to be set aside on revisional jurisdiction.
Whether the accused is entitled to release on bail despite the dismissal of his bail petition.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Balu
LIP Marketing
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
