Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3421 (MAD)

Anbarasan v. R. Durairaj

2014-09-18

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The accused, who was convicted in a criminal case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent herein as C.C.No.230 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai has approached this Court with the present revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C read with 401 Cr.P.C., after suffering a dismissal of his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai in C.A.No.73 of 2006. He was found guilty and punishable for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on the dishonour of the cheque issued by the revision petitioner herein in favour of the respondent herein in discharge of a debt and based on the allegation that even after receipt of the intimation of dishonour of the cheque on the ground of non availability of sufficient funds in the account on which it was drawn by a statutory notice and was called upon to make payment of the cheque amount, the revision petitioner failed to do so. 2. After trial, the learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, held that the accusation made against the revision petitioner stood proved, and found him guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. The said judgment of the trial Court was challenged before the lower appellate Court in C.A.No.73 of 2006. The learned lower Appellate Judge also concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all respects. Thereafter, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed. 3. The arguments advanced by Mr.J.Jawahar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. 4. Thereafter, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed. 3. The arguments advanced by Mr.J.Jawahar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, without canvassing any point on the merits of the case, perhaps due to the fact that he was convinced that the judgments of the Courts below were unassailable on merits, pleaded for the indulgence of the Court and submitted that the revision petitioner must be given a chance to cross examine the complainant who figured as P.W.1 and to examine witnesses on his side as defence witnesses, as he was denied such a chance by the trial Court by dismissing a petition filed by him under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, drawing the attention of the Court to the various docket orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on various dates, would contend that sufficient opportunities were given to the revision petitioner and still he was went upon prolonging the case as long as possible and has come forward with the present plea as yet another attempt to protract the case. 6. The docket orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai show that on many occasions, the revision petitioner was absent and the case was adjourned at the request made on his behalf. Though the trial commenced on 21.01.2006 and the evidence on the side of the complainant was closed on that date itself, on the subsequent hearing date on which the revision petitioner was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not plead for re-opening of the case for cross examination of P.W.1 and on the other hand, he pleaded for adjournment to examine defence witnesses. Subsequently also, he was continuously absent and at last, when he appeared on 05.04.2006 he did not produce the defence witnesses and the learned trial Judge showing indulgence adjourned the case as last chance for the examination of defence witnesses to 18.04.2006. On 18.04.2006 also, the revision petitioner did not produce witnesses to be examined on his side and hence the evidence on his side was closed and the case was adjourned to 27.04.2006 for pronouncing judgment. Thereafter, till 27.04.2006 the revision petitioner did nothing and on 27.04.2006, filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1. 7. On 18.04.2006 also, the revision petitioner did not produce witnesses to be examined on his side and hence the evidence on his side was closed and the case was adjourned to 27.04.2006 for pronouncing judgment. Thereafter, till 27.04.2006 the revision petitioner did nothing and on 27.04.2006, filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall P.W.1. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, holding that the same was a ruse for protracting the case further, dismissed the said petition and adjourned the case for pronouncing judgment to 10.05.2006. The petitioner did not challenge the order passed in the petition filed by him under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. On 10.05.2006, judgment was pronounced convicting the revision petitioner as indicated supra. In the appeal, the very same ground was raised and the learned Appellate Judge rejected the said contention holding that the petitioner had dragged on the case and the plea made before the appellate Court was also an attempt to drag on the case further. This Court, after going through the judgments of the Courts below and also the docket orders regarding the various adjournments obtained by the revision petitioner, is of the considered view that despite the fact that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities he was bent upon simply dragging on the case so as to get the conclusion of the case postponed. There is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. During all these years, the revision petitioner has not even made an attempt to have the case compounded. The same also shows that the petitioner was very much inclined to protract the case as long as possible so as to frustrate the respondent/complainant. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Criminal Revision Case and the same deserves dismissal. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.