Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2472 (MAD)

R. Nagaraj v. N. Sakthivel

2012-06-15

C.S.KARNAN

body2012
ORDER The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The respondent herein / complainant had filed a case in C.C.No.471 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore against the revision petitioner herein / accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the accused had issued three cheques for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, out of which one cheque for a sum of Rs.25,000/- was honoured, but the other two cheques were returned unpaid. Hence, the case has been filed and the same was proved against the accused after trial. The learned Magistrate has held that the accused was found guilty under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also imposed a fine of a sum of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had filed an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.331 of 2004. The said appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2005. Subsequently, the accused has filed the above revision before this Court. Notice was served on the complainant. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the cheque amount for a sum of Rs.15,000/- had been paid to the complainant on 01.12.2005, by way of pay order to and in favour of the complainant, viz., N.Shakthivelu, drawn on Union Bank of India, Coimbatore. In order to prove the same, the learned counsel has produced the xerox copy of the pay order. The complainant had also received the same and issued receipt to the accused. The copy of the stamped receipt had also been produced before this Court. 4. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, and submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the complainant had established the case before the Courts below. However, the accused had paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Therefore, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.331 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, dated 30.11.2005. 5. Resultantly, the above revision is allowed. However, the accused had paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Therefore, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.331 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, dated 30.11.2005. 5. Resultantly, the above revision is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and sentence passed in C.A.No.331 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore, dated 30.11.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.471 of 2001, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, dated 29.06.2004 is set-aside. Accordingly ordered.