Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonoured cheque of Rs.5,00,000; appellate court reduced sentence to six months. Revision challenged notice service and alleged cheque given as security to a police officer. Court upheld deemed service under Section 27 General Clauses Act and held presumption unrebutted.
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.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 20.12.2023 Pronounced On : 27.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C(MD). No.513 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD).No. 6779 and 6780 of 2019
S.K.Mariappan ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs. S.Kennedy ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated Crl.A.No.87/2017
dated 28.06.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, confirming the order dated 05.05.2017 made in C.C.No.66/2016 of Fast Track Court Magisterial Level, Thoothukudi, and allow the above revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja
1/9
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.66 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. The learned Judge, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Thoothukudi, passed the conviction against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) (the cheque amount) as compensation to the complainant within a period of one month, in default, to undergo further one month of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.A.No.87 of 2017. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the trial and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year simple imprisonment to six months of simple imprisonment. Challenging the said concurrent findings, the petitioner filed this criminal revision case.
2/9
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
with promise to pay 2% of interest within a period of six months. Thereafter, he failed to pay the interest and the principal. Therefore, he approached the respondent. The respondent on 19.10.2015 failed to pay the principal amount and gave the cheque bearing No.671939 drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Mullakadu Branch, Thoothukudi District. The respondent presented the cheque before the bank and the same was returned for insufficient fund on 20.10.2015. Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice as per the Act, on 26.10.2015 to the petitioner, through the registered post, which was also returned as no such address. Thereafter, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.66 of 2016. He issued a summons to the accused. After his appearance, he served the 207 Cr.P.C. Documents. After that, learned trial Judge framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. He denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. He stood for trial.
another witness was examined as P.W.2 and Marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.16. On the side of defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. The learned trial Judge after recording the above evidence, questioned the
3/9
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
accused under Section 313 (1) Cr.P.C. The same was denied by the accused as false.
(i) Legal notice was also not served and hence, taking the cognizance without proof of service of notice is illegal.
(ii) The petitioner has no contact with the respondent. He borrowed some
amount from one Rajendran, Sub Inspector of Police, and the same was attested by giving the cheque as a security. He requested to return the cheque, Rajendran told that he misplaced the same and thereafter, he did not take any action. The relationship of the Rajendran is admitted by P.W.1/respondent/defactocomplainant. Further, he has no means to pay the amount. To prove the payment, he has not produced any income tax return. In the said circumstances, he pleaded
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
to acquit the accused.
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
vast extent of agricultural land and is doing cultivation in his lands. Therefore, the fact that he had means to pay the amount, is also proved. In all aspects, this revision case is to be dismissed.
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
27.02.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sbn To
8/9
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.513 of 2019
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.RC(MD). No.513 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6779 and 6780 of 2019
27.02.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether service of the statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act was proved despite return of registered post as 'no such address'.
Whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Sections 138 and 139 NI Act by claiming the cheque was given as security to a third party.
Whether concurrent findings of conviction by courts below warranted interference in revision.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
S.K.Mariappan
S.Kennedy
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
