V.Beski David Vs Sukumaran

Prayer: To suspend the sentence imposed in judgment dated 24.04.2026 made in Crl.A.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam at Ranipet District and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S. Arunkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.Sukumaran, respondent-in-person

¶16

__________ Page1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.MP.No.9306 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner in Crl.A.No.55 of 2025, dated 24.04.2026, by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam, Ranipet District, reversing the Judgement of acquittal, dated 22.04.2025 made in STC.No.464 of 2022, by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Arakkonam, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

¶21

By the judgement and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, Act 1881. Aggrieved against such acquittal, the complainant/respondent herein filed appeal Crl.A.No.55 of 2025 before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Arakkonam, Ranipet District. The First Appellate Court, by reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence as follows:

¶22

Petitioner	Conviction	Sentence
Sole accused	U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To undergo for a period compensation	simple imprisonment of three months with of cheque amount as
	contemplated	u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and

¶24

Page2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.MP.No.9306 of 2026

¶27

order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.1167 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶28

This Court heard Mr. R. Thirumoorthy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.Sukumaran, respondent/party in person and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.347909, dated 05.05.2022 for Rs.8,90,000/- 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 judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court failed to consider that mere admission of sginature in the cheque does not automatically establish and offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complainant proves the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Further, the complainant/respondent had not produced any independent proof such as bank statements, accounts, receipts, income records to establish the advancement of

¶30

the alleged sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It was further argued that the learned

¶31

Page3 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.MP.No.9306 of 2026

¶34

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

¶35

First Appellate Court below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

Page4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.MP.No.9306 of 2026

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner namely, V. Beski David, Son of Vincent on the following conditions:-

¶45

i. The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Arakkonam, within three weeks from the date of

¶46

Page5 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.MP.No.9306 of 2026

¶49

receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision 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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Arakkonam, 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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

27.07.2026

¶56

2/2

¶57

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

¶58