Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 657 (MAD)

K. Rajendran v. K. Natarajan

2020-03-16

M.DHANDAPANI

body2020
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment in C.A.No.11 of 2013 dated 10.08.2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, by modifying the sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur in S.T.C.No.762 of 2011, dated 04.07.2013 and acquit the petitioner.) 1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.11 of 2013 dated 10.08.2015, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, by modifying the sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur in S.T.C.No.762 of 2011, dated 04.07.2013 and to acquit the petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their own rankings before the trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.102 of 2007, for the offence under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent / complainant has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karur, stating that the accused having well acquaintance with the complainant had borrowed a total sum of Rs.2,37,500/- on various dates as loan and for the said amount, the accused on 28.08.2006, had issued a post-dated cheque dated 01.09.2006, payable by the ICICI Bank Limited, Mira Road Branch, Thane. The said cheque was presented on 27.09.2006, before the Indian Overseas Bank, Noyyal Branch and the said instrument was returned with endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. In spite of the repeated request from the complainant, the accused failed to repay the said amount. Thereafter, the complainant has sent a statutory legal notice dated 30.10.2006, demanding the cheque amount within 15 days and the accused knowing well about the contents of the notice, with an intention to avoid the receipt of the notice had returned the same as “No such addressee”. The endorsement made by the postal peon is disputed by the complainant. However, the accused neither sent any reply notice nor paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the said complaint was filed before the Court below. 4. On behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, however, no documents were marked. However, the accused neither sent any reply notice nor paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the said complaint was filed before the Court below. 4. On behalf of the complainant, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, however, no documents were marked. After hearing the rival submissions, the trial Court has found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three [3] months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty [30] days. 5. Assailing the said order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Karur. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, modified the sentence as follows: “i) The appellant / accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,39,500/- within three months from today and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. ii) A sum of Rs.2,37,500/- is ordered to be paid to the respondent / complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the balance amount is ordered to be confiscated to the Government.” Against the concurrent finding, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed. 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused that a notice had been sent to him and the said notice was returned with an endorsement “No such addressee”. Further, the complainant has not taken any steps to serve the accused. However, learned Counsel fairly conceded that except the above defence, no other defence is taken by them. 7. This Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on the above contention and also perused the materials available on record. There is no representation for the respondent for the past few occasions. The name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list. Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the case without hearing the respondent. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point available in this case is that the notice sent by the complainant was not served upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the complainant also fairly conceded that except the said fact, no other defence is taken by them. 9. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point available in this case is that the notice sent by the complainant was not served upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the complainant also fairly conceded that except the said fact, no other defence is taken by them. 9. Even at the outset, this Court is of the considered view that it is always within the power of the Courts to impose conditions as it deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The imposition of fine of Rs.2,39,500/-, in the circumstances of the case and from the materials available on record, cannot be stated to be onerous or unreasonable or unwarranted and it is well within the inherent power of the Court to order fine in order to secure the ends of justice, more so when the petitioner was visited with an adverse order and being convicted for violating the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act towards dishonour of cheque issued by him to the complainant. 10. Therefore, this Court does not find anything amiss in the order passed by the lower appellate Court directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,39,500/- and the said order passed by the Court below is perfectly in order and is just and reasonable. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition lacks merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.