Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2501 (MAD)

M. Kannan v. S. Rajeswari

2012-06-18

C.S.KARNAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner in each of the above revisions / accused has filed the above revisions against the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.Nos.212, 211 and 213 of 2004 respectively, dated 28.12.2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.457, 456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 19.05.2004 and to set-aside the same. 2. The respondent in each of the above revisions / complainant had filed the above Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.Nos.335, 334 and 336 of 2006 against the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.212, 211 and 213 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.457, 456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 19.05.2004 for enhancement of sentence and conviction and to award compensation. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The complainant had filed C.C.No.457 of 2000, C.C.No.456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, stating that the accused in C.C.No.457 of 2000 had borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000/ and the accused in C.C.No.456 of 2006 had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- and the accused in C.C.No.5516 of 1999 had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-respectively as hand loan; in order to settle the said above loan the accused in C.C.No.457 of 2000 had issued three cheques each for a sum of Rs.3,000/-and the other accused in C.C.Nos.456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- and a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-respectively. All the cheques were returned unpaid after presentation in the complainant's account, with the endorsement of "account closed. Thereafter, the complainant had observed all legal formalities and tried the case before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate held that the all the accused were found guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced each of them to undergo six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- as penalty; in default, each of the accused was to undergo a further period of one month simple imprisonment. 4. The learned Magistrate held that the all the accused were found guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced each of them to undergo six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- as penalty; in default, each of the accused was to undergo a further period of one month simple imprisonment. 4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused in C.C.Nos.457 of 2000, 456 of 2000 and 5516 of 1999 had filed an appeal in C.A.No.212, 211 and 213 of 2004 respectively, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai. The learned judge dismissed all the three appeals , on 28.12.2005, on merits and confirmed the trial Court's judgment. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the above appeals, the each of the appellant / accused has filed the above Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.154, 155 and 156 of 2006. 5. The respondent / complainant in each of the criminal revisions has filed the above revisions in Crl.R.C.Nos.335, 334 and 336 of 2006 for enhancement of sentence and for award of compensation. 6. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that at the time of admission, this Court had imposed a condition on the accused in C.C.No.457 of 2000 to deposit a sum of Rs.9,000/ and the accused in C.C.No.456 of 2000 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the accused in C.C.No.5516 of 1999 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said conditional order had been complied with. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submits that the complainant had filed three cases in C.C.No.457 of 2000, C.C.No.456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The C.C.No.457 of 2000 was filed for dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.9,000/-. The C.C.No.456 of 2000 was filed for dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/-and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 was filed for dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-. 7. The Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2006 arises from C.C.No.457 of 2000. In this revision, this Court had imposed a condition, at the time of admission, on the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.9,000/-and the same was complied with. 7. The Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.154 of 2006 arises from C.C.No.457 of 2000. In this revision, this Court had imposed a condition, at the time of admission, on the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.9,000/-and the same was complied with. Likewise, the other Crl.R.C.Nos.155 and 156 of 2006 arising from C.C.Nos.456 of 2000 and 5516 of 1999; In these revisions, this Court had imposed a condition on the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each at the time of admission and the same were complied with. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners / accused further submits that all the cases filed above, the total cheque amount was for a sum of Rs.7,03,000/-. As per conditional order of this Court, a sum of Rs.2,09,000/-had already been deposited into the credit of the respective C.C. Numbers, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners / accused had paid a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of the complainant for the balance due on all the cheque amounts. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant had received the same and the learned counsel has no objection to set-aside the conviction and sentence passed in all three cases respectively. Further, the learned counsel entreats this Court for withdrawal of the earlier deposited amount made by the each of the accused as per this Court's conditional order. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions jointly made by the learned counsels on all sides and on considering that the demand draft for a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- had been taken in favour of the complainant and on perusing the impugned judgment and conviction passed in C.A.Nos.212, 211 and 213 of 2004, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, dated 28.12.2005, this Court sets aside the said judgment and conviction. The complainant is permitted to withdraw the earlier deposited amount lying in the credit of C.C.No.457 of 2000, C.C.No.456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 respectively, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, after filing a Memo. 11. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.No.154, 155 and 156 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioners / accused are allowed. 11. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revisions in Crl.R.C.No.154, 155 and 156 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioners / accused are allowed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.212 of 2004, C.A.No.211 of 2004 and C.A.No.213 of 2004 respectively on the file Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, dated 28.12.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.457 of 2000, C.C.No.456 of 2000 and C.C.No.5516 of 1999 respectively, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 19.05.2004 are set-aside. The accused in each of the cases cited above are set free. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.