Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2775 (MAD)

R. Anbu v. C. Gangadaran

2007-08-31

S.TAMILVANAN

body2007
Judgment :- There is no representation for the revision petitioner / accused. Even in the previous hearing on 27.08.2007, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. Hence, the case was ordered to be posted under the caption “For Dismissal”. As there is no representation for the revision petitioner, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent and after going through the Judgment of the Court below and also the evidence available on record, the order is passed on merits. 2. It is seen that the case was taken on file on the complaint given by the respondent / complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. As per the complaint given by the respondent, the revision petitioner issued a cheque, dated 11.09.2000 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the amount due and payable to the respondent. When the cheque was sent for collection, the same was dishonoured, due to insufficient funds, hence, the respondent / complainant issued legal notice, but in spite of the legal notice, the cheque amount was not paid to the respondent / complainant. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the trial court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The dishonoured cheque, dated 11.09.2000, the memo relating to the dishonour of the cheque and the invoice were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.3. The copy of the legal notice and the postal acknowledgment were marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5, apart from the copy of the bank account. The respondent / complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 before the trial court, apart from examining P.W.2. The respondent was examined as D.W.1, apart from examining D.W.2. 4. The trial court, considering the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, held that the guilt against the revision petitioner / accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 2 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 5. It is settled proposition of law that in a criminal revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the same. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 5. It is settled proposition of law that in a criminal revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the same. 6. Considering the impugned judgment, the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that the finding of the courts below is supported by evidence and therefore, the same cannot be construed as perverse finding. Similarly, I could not find any manifest error of law, which would warrant the interference of this Court in the criminal revision. As there is no error or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the courts below, the revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.