TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and it was dismissed on 02.01.2019. Therefore, the Petitioner has come up with the instant Criminal Revision Case to set aside the aforesaid orders of the Courts below. 3. The circumstance which led the Respondent herein to file C.C. No. 810 of 2012 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are succinctly narrated hereunder:- 3.1. The Complainant and the Revision Petitioner/Accused are neighbours and they know each other. According to the Complainant, the Revision Petitioner/Accused was the proprietor of M/s. Gabriel Promoters engaged in construction work. During the course of such business, the Revision Petitioner/Accused approached the Complainant/Respondent for a loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. It was represented by the Revision Petitioner/Accused that she will return the loan amount within three months with interest. Having regard to the proximity of relationship between them, the Complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/- as loan amount. On receipt of the loan amount, the Revision Petitioner/Accused issued six cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, Egmore, Chennai and they are (i) Cheque No.001972 dated 30.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 filed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused came into existence in the year 2005 and it would only disclose that there are transactions between the Complainant and the Revision Petitioner/Accused since 2005. Therefore, the trial Court held the Revision Petitioner/Accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment, as mentioned supra. 3.3. The Appeal preferred by the Revision Petitioner/Accused before the Appellate Court was also dismissed on 02.01.2019 concurring with the conclusions reached by the trial Court. 3.4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.01.2019 made in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2015, the Accused had preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused Mr.V.Sakkarapani, would contend that the Revision Petitioner/Accused was working as a School Teacher in a Government aided School. Her husband was the Proprietor of M/s. Gabriel Promoters, a construction firm. In the course of his construction business, the husband of the Revision Petitioner/Accused availed loan from many persons, including his neighbour, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y complaint, the same will be resisted as per law. After receipt of the reply, the Complainant filed the complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai. 5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused further submitted that in the course of the cross-examination of P.W-1, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 were marked on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Accused, but they were not properly considered by the trial Court. It is further stated that the appellate Court dismissed the appeal not on merits but on the ground that there is no representation for the Appellant/Accused. 6. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused further stated that the Respondent was her neighbour and he is in the business of lending money. The Revision Petitioner had settled the dues to the Respondent/Complainant, apart from several other creditors. In fact, it was the wife of the Respondent who had handed over the blank cheques duly signed by the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner was under the impression that she had settled all the dues. However, the Respondent with ulterior motive seems to have retained few cheques with him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed copy of the judgment, she came to know that her Counsel did not appear before the Appellate Court and therefore, she sought records to engage a different Counsel. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further contends that the Counsel who appeared for the Revision Petitioner before the Appellate Court did not handover the copies of the records to her which compelled the Revision Petitioner to file a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Appeal was dismissed for nonappearance of the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondent. It is the contention of the Appellant that the Appellant was not informed of the stage of the case by the Counsel appointed by her. He had made her believe that her case will be taken care of by him. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that as neighbours they used to borrow money from the Complainant. The wife of the Complainant handed over the promissory notes and other documents obtained from her and her husband. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner was under the impression that she had settled all the dues. It is in this context, the reply notice sent by the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 11. Per contra, Mr. R. Thamarai Selvan, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent submitted that this Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. In a Revision filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence or consider the facts which were already appraised by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The finding of the trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Court Judge can be considered only if the Judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, materially irregular and based on irrelevant material evidence. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Complainant/Respondent invited the attention of this Court to Sections Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they are extracted as under: "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of Revision. - (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent contended that both the Courts below, on appreciation of the materials placed on record has come to a correct conclusion that the guilt of the Revision Petitioner/Accused has been proved. Further, the Revision Petitioner/Accused did not deny the signatures contained in the cheques. She also did not dispute that those cheques have been issued to the Complainant/Respondent herein. In such circumstances, the presumption is that those cheques have been issued for a legally enforceable debt and liability. Further, the Revision Petitioner/Accused did not step into the witness box for the reasons best known to her. In such circumstances, the presumption raised by the Complainant/Respondent gets stronger, which has not been rebutted by the Revision Petitioner/Accused. In fact, the trial court has scanned Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 filed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused and concluded that those receipts have been issued in the year 2005 and they have no reference to the loan amount borrowed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the Courts below are perverse. The concurrent findings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad withdrawn the amount and paid it to the Revision Petitioner/Accused. Thus, there is nothing on record to show the manner in which the amount was paid by the Complainant/Respondent to the Revision Petitioner/Accused. 16. The Complainant/Respondent also admitted in cross-examination that he had issued acknowledgments marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. The Complainant admits that for the amount received by the Accused, he had obtained cheques from her. The Complainant also admits that at the time when the amount was repaid, he had issued acknowledgments which were marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. Thus, at the time of repayment, the Complainant/Respondent did not return the cheques received either from the Revision Petitioner or from her husband. This piece of statement of the Complainant/Respondent in his cross-examination only shows that the initial presumption raised by the Complainant/Respondent has been rebutted by the Accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by cross- examining the Complainant. That apart, the Revision Petitioner/Accused also issued a reply notice to the statutory notice thereby denied the case projected by the Complainant. 17. As per the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s dates, the Court below have erroneously arrive at a conclusion that the Accused had committed offence under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 18. In the cross -examination P.W-1, he admits that in some cases the wife of the Complainant had accepted the amount from the Accused and issued acknowledgments. Here again, it is for the Complainant/Respondent to substantiate that he had paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the Revision Petitioner/Accused which remains unpaid. When he had not furnished the statement from his Bank account, it is hard to accept the case of the Complainant/Respondent. In such event, both the courts ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the Complainant as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, but it was not done. Both the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai as well as the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai committed a legal error in accepting the case projected by the Complainant/Respondent as gospel truth. When the Complainant is unable to produce the statement of account to show that he has withdrawn the entire amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and paid it to the Revision Petitio....