9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had issued a cheque. The the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court finding that the accused has not rebutted the presumption found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and had rightly convicted him. The appeal of the accused was dismissed. However the revision of the complainant was allowed and while confirming the conviction the sentence was modified to six months simple imprisonment and the compensation was modified to ₹ 5,00,000/-. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Criminal Revision cases stand dismissed. - Crl.R.C.Nos. 409 & 410 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of private complaint in C.C.No.1205 of 2011 before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the NI Act) against the accused. 3.On appearance, the accused was questioned under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation. 4.The complainant examined himself as P.W.1. and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. 5.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of the defence, the accused examined his brother as DW1 and however the accused had not marked any documentary evidence to defend his case. 6.After considering the evidence on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity Civil Court, Chennai, in Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2013, the accused / petitioner preferred a petition in Crl.R.C.No.410 of 2014 under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. 8.Heard Ms.Abino Monisha, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr.R.Chakkaravathy, learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 9.Learned counsel for the accused would submit that admittedly it is a case where the accused / petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- towards security for the loan obtained by his brother (D.W.1) for construction of house and that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration that the accused / petitioner had only stood as a guarantor and the accused having not borrowed any amount and there is no legall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused and thereby the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him as stated above. Since there was no sentence of imprisonment, the complainant filed revision for enhancement of sentence and the Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay ₹ 5,00,000/- as compensation. However, he would submit that the complainant has not preferred any petition against modification of compensation. 11.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to state here that while exercising Revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.272199 dated 23.09.2010 (Ex.P1), and when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker viz. HDFC Bank, Chennai, Rajaji Salai Branch on 27.09.2010, the said cheque was dishonoured by the accused banker with an endorsement insufficient funds vide bank memo dated 28.09.2010 (Ex.P2). Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 04.10.2010 (Ex.P3) to the accused by R.P.A.D, which was received by the accused vide postal acknowledgement dated 05.10.2010 (Ex.P4); the accused despite receiving the legal notice, neither replied nor repaid the cheque amount as demanded by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant initiated prosecution by way of private complaint in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money towards loan while he was constructing house and that in order to discharge his liability, he had issued a cheque. The the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court finding that the accused has not rebutted the presumption found him guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and had rightly convicted him. The appeal of the accused was dismissed. However the revision of the complainant was allowed and while confirming the conviction the sentence was modified to six months simple imprisonment and the compensation was modified to ₹ 5,00,000/-. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. 16.In the result, these Criminal Revision cases stand dismissed as de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
