Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2386 (MAD)

S. T. S. Jayakumar v. Thangaraj

2021-09-15

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence made in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2015 dated 11.04.2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Session Judge, Tiruppur in confirming the judgment made in S.T.C.No.96 of 2013 dated 18.04.2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Tiruppur.) 1. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein. 2. This criminal revision against the conviction and sentence made in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2015 dated 11.04.2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Session Judge, Tiruppur in confirming the judgment made in S.T.C.No.96 of 2013 dated 18.04.2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Tiruppur in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 3. The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C based upon Exs.P1, P2 and P3 cheque which was bounced for insufficient of funds as could be seen from Exs.P4, P5 and P6. 4. After issuing the legal notice and the reply, the case has been filed before the Court. The total sum of Rs.3,20,000/- in 3 cheques was issued in respect of the amount borrowed by the accused on 05.03.2011 Rs.3 lakhs. The trial Court on consideration of the documents Exs.P1 to P3, the cheques Exs.P4 to P6, return endorsement for insufficient funds, legal notice Ex.P7 and also taking note of the fact that the accounts maintained by the accused with P.W.1 Axis Bank and the account opening form and also the statement of accounts of the accused, has held that since the accused has not disputed the fact that cheque was issued from his account and signature in Exs.P1 to P3 cheques are admitted and has came to the conclusion that the private complainant is entitled for statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence to rebut such presumption, the trial Court laid the conviction and sentenced as stated supra. 5. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence to rebut such presumption, the trial Court laid the conviction and sentenced as stated supra. The lower Appellate Court in C.A.No.52/2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiurppur, on re-appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that no steps have been taken by the accused to probablize the suggestive case and rejected the appeal and hence this revision. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the pre-existing legally enforcible debt was not demonstrated by the petitioner and hence prayed for acquittal. 7. After perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, the accused has admitted the signature in Ex.P1 to P3 cheques. From the documents filed by the bank (accused bank) Exs.P11 to P14 goes to show that the cheque has been issued from the account of the accused and signature is that of the accused and the appellant does not have sufficient funds to honour the cheque. 8. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, the signature in the Exs.P1 to P3 cheques was not challenged and hence both the Courts below has rightly come to the conclusion that P.W.1 is entitled for statutory presumption. 9. In the absence of any probablize of the suggestive case, both the Courts below has rightly come to the conclusion to laid the conviction and sentence. The finding rendered by both the Courts below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in this revision jurisdiction. 10. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the finding of the trial Court, the concurrent findings so rendered by the lower Courts cannot be interfered with. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.