Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2691 (MAD)

Mahadevan v. Sakthivel

2023-08-03

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgment made in C.A.No.71 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the XVI Additional District Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.2962 of 2016 dated 17.12.2018 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Chennai.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a judgment dated 17.12.2018, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Egmore, Chennai, finding the accused guilty of the offence and imposing a sentence of simple imprisonment of one year and directing the Accused to pay twice the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Complainant within one month and in default of compensation, the Petitioner/Accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The said conviction was confirmed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.71 of 2019 by judgment dated 18.11.2019. 3. This Criminal Revision Case is pending in this Court from 2019. 4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the subject matter was referred for Lok Adalat at the instance of the Revision Petitioner. When the case records were sent to the Lok Adalat, he did not appear. Therefore, the case was returned to this Court. 5. As per the proceedings recorded on 09.01.2023, the subject matter of this dispute was referred to Lok Adalat. 6. As per the proceedings recorded on 02.06.2023, the matter was posted before the Lok Adalat, parties did not appear before the Lok Adalat, and the matter was reverted before this Court. There is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Post the matter for dismissal on 21.06.2023. 7. As per the proceedings recorded on 02.06.2023. Subsequently, it came up for hearing on 03.07.2023 and again on 04.07.2023. 8. When the case came up for hearing on 04.07.2023, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner had to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Whereas, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Egmore, Chennai, had imposed compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. Already, Rs.1 lakh was deposited after conviction. Subsequently, after dismissal of the Appeal and after entertaining the Criminal Revision Case, Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited. Whereas, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Egmore, Chennai, had imposed compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. Already, Rs.1 lakh was deposited after conviction. Subsequently, after dismissal of the Appeal and after entertaining the Criminal Revision Case, Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited. Therefore, he is ready to settle the amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) and Demand Draft of Rs.80,000/- is ready with him. 9. After having suffered conviction before the learned Trial Judge, the learned Appellate Judge did not entertain the ground of Appeal stating that the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge was compensation for the cheque amount. The learned Appellate Judge having confirmed the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, the Accused, who had suffered conviction, cannot demand settlement of the amount less than the amount ordered by the Court and this plea cannot be kept pending for years together. Already, this Court had given sufficient opportunities for settlement. The Appellant/Accused having suffered conviction cannot seek adjournments in the Criminal Revision Case on the pretext of settlement. Hence, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as having no merits. 10. In that view of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case with the following directions:- (a)The Revision Petitioner/Accused is directed to surrender before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, within a week, failing which the Respondent/Complainant should take appropriate action through the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, including proclaiming the Accused as absconding Accused. (b)The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, is also directed that if the Accused does not surrender within a week, he/she shall pass appropriate orders, directing the police to secure the Accused. (c)The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, also directed to forward a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai, for effecting the arrest of the Accused, who had suffered conviction which was confirmed in the Appeal. (d) The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai, is directed that in cases involving the Accused, who had suffered conviction. The Accused may be traced and produced before the Court concerned. So that the case is not pending for want of execution. (d) The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai, is directed that in cases involving the Accused, who had suffered conviction. The Accused may be traced and produced before the Court concerned. So that the case is not pending for want of execution. (e) If the Accused does not surrender, the Complainant shall initiate action against the Accused under the provisions of proclaimed offender by obtaining order from the Court, including publication of notices in print and media. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore, Chennai, can declare the Accused as proclaimed offender and initiate recovery proceedings over the assets of the Accused for not obeying the order of the Court. 11. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.