Criminal revision against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding a dishonoured cheque. The High Court found the appeal against the petitioner's stand insufficient and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed; conviction and sentencing upheld.
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.72 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
Jayashree . .. Petitioner
Versus
T.Senthil
. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed in CA.No.270 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court of Erode confirming the judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed in STC.No.183 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Erode by allowing the present criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
1/6
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated
06.12.2017 passed in CA.No.270 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court of Erode confirming the judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed in STC.No.183 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Erode.
2/6
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the petitioner, nobody was examined and no documents were marked before the trial court. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also imposed 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 also dismissed and confirmed the conviction rendered by the trial court.
3/6
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and in order to repay the same, she issued cheque. The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned for the reason 'account closed. However, the submission of the petitioner is completely contradictory since she had taken a specific stand that the cheque was issued for security purpose at the time of borrowal of loan by her husband. Therefore, she never denied the issuance of cheque and signature of the cheque. Further, she also failed to make any statement when she was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court. Further, admittedly there was money transaction between both the petitioner and the respondent herein. Even assuming that when her husband borrowed loan, the cheque was issued as security purpose, even after repayment of the entire loan amount by her husband, no steps had been taken for return of the cheque. In fact, no complaint was also lodged by her husband or by the petitioner herein.
4/6
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
the trial court. It is also not complied with and the petitioner also failed to take notice to the respondent even till today. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act and also the appellate court rightly confirmed the same. As such, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.
10.10.2022
Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok
5/6
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lok
To
Crl.RC.No.72 of 2018
10.10.2022
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cheque was issued for security purposes rather than discharge of debt and if repayment extinguishes the dishonour liability.
Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner for issuing a bounced cheque despite claimed repayment and non-return.
Whether the criminal revision against conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act should be allowed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayashree
T.Senthil
G.K.Ilantiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
