Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3189 (MAD)

M. Vasanthi v. B. Selvam

2014-09-09

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the sole accused in S.T.C.No.1654 of 2005, decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The said case was instituted on a complaint preferred by the respondent herein for prosecuting and punishing the petitioner herein for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the dishonour of a cheque dated 28.01.2005, issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and on his failure to make payment of the cheque amount, after the dishonour of the cheque was intimated by a statutory notice and the petitioner was called upon to make payment of the cheque amount. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trial, held the petitioner to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted her for the said offence and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment. 3. When an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.33 of 2007, the same came to be disposed of by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Madurai, by a judgment dated 29.08.2007, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, both in respect of conviction and sentence. 4. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment of the learned Appellate Judge confirming the conviction made by the trial Court and the sentence imposed by the trial Court the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the revision petitioner under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code r/w Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. After having filed the revision 7 years back, namely in 2007 itself, the petitioner has chosen to keep away from the Court. On the previous occasions also, there was absence of representation. However, showing leniency, the case was adjourned and at one point of time, it was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. But the indulgence shown by the Court did not make the revision petitioner mend her ways and come forward to argue the revision. Even on the previous date of hearing, namely 04.09.2013, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. Today also, there is no representation for her. But the indulgence shown by the Court did not make the revision petitioner mend her ways and come forward to argue the revision. Even on the previous date of hearing, namely 04.09.2013, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. Today also, there is no representation for her. In addition, the respondent has also chosen to keep away from the Court and there is no representation from the respondent also. 6. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that postponing the case any further shall be against the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court passes the order, after going through the materials available on record. 7. The revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the allegation that she borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent, promising to repay the same by 28.01.2005 and issued a cheque dated 28.01.2005 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Pudur bearing cheque No.392353, for the said purpose; that when the cheque was presented on 01.02.2005 for collection, it was returned dishonoured stating insufficiency of funds as the ground for non-payment; that on receipt of intimation from the Bank, a statutory notice was issued by the respondent through his lawyer on 11.02.2005 and the revision petitioner, who received the said notice failed to make payment, as per the demand made therein and that the revision petitioner did not even take care to send a reply. 8. In the enquiry, the respondent herein figured as the sole witness on the side of the complainant. The dishonoured cheque, dishonour slip, copy of the advocate's notice, acknowledgment card and the debit note issued by the Bank of the respondent and also a certified copy of a telegram were produced as exhibits P.1 to P.6. One Arulanandhasamy was examined as sole witness on the side of the revision petitioner/accused and two documents were produced as Exs.D.1 and D.2 on her side. The learned Trial Magistrate, on an appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/accused was proved to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, she was convicted and punished as aforesaid. 9. On appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court No.3), Madurai re-appreciated the evidence, and on such re-appreciation, concurred with the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, she was convicted and punished as aforesaid. 9. On appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court No.3), Madurai re-appreciated the evidence, and on such re-appreciation, concurred with the findings of the trial Court. Besides confirming the conviction, the Appellate Court held that the punishment imposed on the revision petitioner/accused was not harsher and the Appellate Court confirmed the sentence also. 10. When both the Courts, on appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence, have arrived at a concurrent finding holding the revision petitioner/accused to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless there is any perversity in the finding or any glaring error, the Revisional Court shall not normally interfere with such finding. This Court, after going through the records, is of the considered view that there is no defect or infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the trial Court both in respect of conviction and sentence. No ground for interference with the same either regarding conviction and sentence or regarding sentence alone has been made out. There is no merit in the revision and the same deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.