Star Plastics Vs Aryan Jain

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026 in

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2026

¶8

M/s. Star Plastics, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.V.Nandakumar , No.168/1, Second Floor, Kolathupalayam, Gangapuram(Post), Chittode (via), Erode 638 102

¶9

Mr.V.Nandakumar, Managing Partner of M/s.Star Plastics, No.54, Green City, Villarasampatti, Erode 638 107.

¶10

... Revision Petitioners

¶11

Vs

¶12

Mr. Aryan Jain ... Respondent

¶13

Prayer:- To suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the XXII Addl. Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.1110 of 2025 vide judgment dated 30.04.2026 and consequently enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Revision.

¶14

For Revision Petitioner : Mr. R. Palaniandavan

¶15

For Respondent : served, no appearance

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision

¶21

Petitioners, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioners in Crl.A.No.1110 of 2025, dated 30.04.2026, by the XXII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai reversing the Judgement, dated 11.07.2025 made in STC.No.9800 of 2024, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

¶22

By the judgement and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioners were acquitted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, Act 1881. Aggrieved against such acquittal, the respondent herein filed appeal Crl.A.No.1110 of 2025 before the XXII Addl. City Civil Court Chennai. The

¶23

First Appellate Court, by reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the

¶24

trial court, convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offence as follows:

¶25

Petitioner	Conviction	Sentence
Sole accused	U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.	To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months together with compensation of Rs.43,57,500/- to the complainant. The period of sentence shall be undergone by the 2^ndaccused.

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026

¶29

3.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioners have filed the above Crl.RC.No.1107 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶30

4.This Court heard Mr. R. Palaniandavan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶31

5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.000041, dated 25.09.2023 in favour of the respondent and when the same was presented for encashment it was returned with an endorsement ‘Payment Stopped By Drawer’. After issuance of statutory notice, a complaint was filed against the petitioners under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The First Appellate Court has failed to consider that the respondent was represented by a power of attorney agent who was examined as PW1 and he was thoroughly lacking competence to depose before the Magistrate as he was not aware of various vital facts touching the subject transaction which was clearly elicited during the cross examination of PW1. The appellate court has committed a grave error in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner is supposed to have raised the defence that the cheque was

¶32

3/8

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026 misused by the respondent and in the absence of such a defence being raised by the petitioner, the quantum of cheque amount becomes insignificant for being considered. 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 First Appellate Court. It was further argued that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶35

6.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.

¶36

7.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioners have 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

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026

¶40

length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioners 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

8.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed without considering the entire materials placed before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶42

9.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

¶43

State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

¶44

10.The Revision Petitioners have raised substantial grounds in the Revision, 5/8

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026 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 Petitioners are entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶47

11.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner No.2, namely, V. Nandakumar, Managing Partner of M/s.Star Plastics on the following conditions:-

¶48

i. The Revision Petitioner No.2 shall surrender before the Fast Track Court -I Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai at Allikulam within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioner No.2 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.

¶49

ii. The Revision Petitioner No.1 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.

¶50

iii. The realization of fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.

¶51

iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the Fast Track Court -I , Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Allikulam Chennai, once in every month, ie., on the 3^rd day of every month commencing from the month

¶52

6/8

¶53

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

¶54

Crl.M.P.No.8772 of 2026

¶55

of July 2026 at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

24.06.2026 2/2

¶59

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No msr To

¶60