P.Nallusamy Vs M/s.Winner India City Developers Pvt.Ltd.

Prayer: To suspend the sentence in judgment in C.C.No.516/2013, dt.28.10.2024 passed by the Court of the Fast track Court No.1,Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and confirmed by judgment in Crl.A.No.15/2025 dt.25.11.2025 passed by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore , pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶15

For Petitioner(s):

¶16

Mr.S. Sheik Ismail

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision

¶19

Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner

¶20

Page1 of 7

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2026

¶23

in Crl.A.No.15 of 2025, dated 25.11.2025, by the learned V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgement dated 28.10.2024 made in C.C.No.516 of 2013 by the learned Fast Track Court No.1, Judicial

¶24

Magistrate, Coimbatore, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

¶25

By the judgement and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows;

¶26

Petitioner	Conviction	Se	ntence
Sole accused	U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.	To undergo si for a period of and to pay a	mple imprisonment nine months along compensation of
		Rs.28,00,000/-,	in default, to
		undergo SI for two months	a further period of

¶27

Aggrieved against such conviction and sentence, the complainant/respondent

¶28

herein filed appeal Crl.A.No.15 of 2025 before the V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

¶29

Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and

¶30

order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.467 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶31

Page2 of 7

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2026

¶34

This Court heard Mr.S.Sheik Ismail, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque for Rs.14,00,000/- in favour of the respondent and when the same was presented for encashment it was returned with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’. After issuance of statutory notice, a complaint was filed against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the Courts have failed to consider the defense exhibits 1- 9 which clearly exhibits that the alleged cheque was lost and the transaction stated by the respondent is false. Both the Courts have convicted the accused without giving sufficient opportunity in a hurried manner and by completely ignoring the defense side evidence. There is absence of corroboration with regard to alleged transaction of property in Konnur village by the respondent company, however, without considering the same, both the courts below have convicted the petitioner , which is not valid in the eye of law. It was further argued that the learned appellate Court has failed to notice the discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses and the crystal part of the evidences was not at all assessed by the both the courts below. It was further argued that the judgment passed by the both the courts below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶36

Page3 of 7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2026

¶39

It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioners have a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶40

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner has also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioners undertake that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶41

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed

¶42

Page4 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2026

¶45

without considering the entire materials placed before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶46

Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Court should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

¶47

10.The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶48

Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner namely,

¶49

P.Nallusamy, Son of Palaniappan on the following conditions:-

¶50

i. The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Fast Track Court No.1, Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision

¶51

Page5 of 7

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2026

¶54

Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/ - (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each, subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision.

¶55

ii. The Revision Petitioner and sureties shall affix their Photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the above said Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. iii. The realization of fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.

¶56

iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Fast Track Court No.1, Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore , once in every month, ie., on the 3^rd day of every month commencing from the month of September 2026 at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶57

v. On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

¶58

With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

¶59

27.07.2026

¶60

2/2

¶61

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No msr

¶62

To

¶63