BAIL SLIP IN CRL.R.C.No.1099/2017 The Petitioner herein/Accused namely Sunil Kumar.C aged 48 years S/o Balan, was directed to be released on bail by order of this Court dated 31/10/2017 made in CRL.M.P.No.10344/2017. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.R.C.No.1099 of 2017 Sunil Kumar.C ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Abdul Khader M.A. 2.The State represented through the Public Prosecutor, Puducherry. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 379 r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C, to setaside the judgment dated 02-03- 2017 passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2014 by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry, confirming the Judgment dated 17-10-2014 made in S.T.R.No. 2019 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate Mahe, convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pleased to pass the Judgment to acquit the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.V.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Krishna Prasad for R1 for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane No.2 Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) ORDER The petitioner/accused in S.T.R.No.2019 of 2013 who was convicted by the trial Court by judgement dated 17.10.2014 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and further, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ three months simple imprisonment. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pudhucherry, in Crl.A.No.39 of 2014. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Pudhucherry, by judgement dated 02.03.2017 dismissed the appeal confirming the trial Court judgment. Against which, the present revision. 2.Mr.C.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the petitioner has got no relationship with the respondent/ complainant and the petitioner not issued any cheque to him. It is the respondent's son-in-law one Athif Abdulla, who had some financial transaction with the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner handed over the signed cheque to him, which was misused and filled up. Hence, the case has been prosecuted. During the trial, the same was questioned. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no debt for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. It was only a signed cheque, which was filled up and misused. The respondent has got no source to lend such huge amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as loan. Though the same was raised before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, the same was failed to consider. 3.Mr.R.Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner, on receipt of the statutory notice, sent a reply notice, which was marked as Ex.P7. In the reply notice, he admits that cheque was given as security to the respondent. He further admits that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent, who is a money lender and he repaid more than Rs.3,00,000/- to him. The trial Court considering all these aspects and observed that the petitioner had not given any complaint to show that the cheque was misplaced or lying with the respondent after discharge of the liabilities. Further, the said Athif Abdulla, who is none other than the son-in-law of the respondent. Neither the son-in-law of the respondent was examined as witness nor the petitioner got into the box to disprove his case. The statutory presumption is in favour of the respondent. Further, the petitioner admits his signature. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the signed cheque was handed over and not in dispute, the petitioner gave the authority to the holder of the cheque to fill up the same. He further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted that the respondent is a money lender and thereby, confirming that the respondent has got sufficient resources for giving loan. Considering the same and referring to Ex.P.7, reply notice of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deny the signature found in the cheque, the points raised by the petitioner already decided by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 4.This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by both the Courts below. In view of the same, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the petitioner. It is submitted that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the credit of this case. In the event of any such deposit of money paid by the petitioner, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same by filing appropriate petition and the trial Court to return the amount paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent to take appropriate steps to recover the balance amount. In view of the same, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mpl/sms To 1. The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry. 2. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. 3. The Judicial Magistrate, Mahe. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.10906 CRL.R.C.No.1099 of 2017 GPL(CO) CT 09/03/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/