(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s.397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment made in Crl.A.No.303 of 2023, dated 03.11.2023, passed by learned XXIII, Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai which is confirming the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track No.IV at George Town, Chennai made in C.C.No.1220 of 2015, dated 19.05.2023 convicting the petitioner herein for 3 months SI under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence committed u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and award compensation of a sum of Rs.4,91,838/- to the complainant under section 357(c) of Cr.P.C., r/w.138 of Negotiable Instrument act, 1881 and acquit the petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to set aside the judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in C.A. No. 303 of 2023 on the file of the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai. The said judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 19.05.2023 passed in C.c.No.1220 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track No.IV at george Town, Chennai.

2. This Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 has passed the following order which is reproduced as under:

                   ‘Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, mention has been made by one Mr.Ranjith, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Advocate on record namely one Mr.P.Babu is under some medical treatment.

                   2. From the court records, it is seen that another Advocate Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham is also there for the learned counsel for the petitioner. When one counsel is having some health problem, then it is the duty of the second counsel to argue the case.

                   3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Dinuprashanth, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the condition imposed in paragraph No.4 (a) of the order dated 28.10.2025 has not yet been complied with and the petitioner is enjoying the fruits of the interim order granted by this court. Thus, he submitted that the interim order may be vacated and this Revision Case may also be dismissed for noncompliance as there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced.

                   4. One last opportunity is given to Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner to argue this case.

                   5. Put up this case ‘for final disposal’ on 03.08.2026 before the appropriate Bench.’

3. Even when the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ accused that the said order dated 09.07.2026, directing the Revision Petitioner/ accused to comply with the condition imposed in Paragraph No.4(a) of the order dt.28.10.2025 has not been complied with by the Revision Petitioner/ accused, as the Revision Petitioner/accused has no financial capacity to comply with the said order of this Court.

4. The failure to comply with the orders, coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner is neither ready to clear any part of the liability nor respect the orders of the Court. Hence, this Court is compelled to decide the matter on merits. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case, on merits and in accordance with law.

5. This Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition is that the respondent/complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. After a thorough consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 in C.C.No.1220 of 2015, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and directed to pay Rs.4,91,838/- as compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Learned XXIII Addl City Civil Judge, Chennai in C.A. No. 303 of 2023.

9. The same was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 confirming the judgment of trial court dated 19.05.2023. Hence this Criminal Revision.

10. In the memorandum of grounds, the petitioner contended that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the respondent/complainant has not even placed any oral or documentary evidence to prove the basic element of locus standi to file case or liability or legally enforceable debt He further contended that the petitioner has rebutted the presumption through defense witnesses and once the presumption has been rebutted, it is a duty cast upon the respondent/complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, but the courts below failed to take into consideration that the respondent/complainant has not proved his case.

11. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent/ Complainant that the revision petitioner, in order to clear the legally enforceable debt towards chit liability dues and interest payable by the petitioner, issued cheque, but the amount was not repaid by the Revision Petitioner/ accused. Since the accused has not denied the issuance of the cheque in question and also the cheque was dishonoured, the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of the courts below, drawing presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the Respondent/Complainant and consequently, imposing impugned punishment, are justified and hence, no interference by this Court is required.

12. On perusal of the records, it is seen that before the Trial Court, on the side of the complainant, PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. The respondent has examined DW1 and DW2 and marked exhibits D1 to D3 on his side. Ex.P3 is the cheque in question.

13. Both the courts below have found that the Revision Petitioner/ accused has not let in any evidence whatsoever to discard the testimony of Ex.P.3 cheque and that if really the cheques in question, which was given for discharging the chit liability, was misused by the Respondent/complainant, the Revision Petitioner/Accused ought to have filed a police complaint, but he failed to do so, which creates a doubt in the case of the Revision Petitioner/ accused.

14. Both the courts below have further found that once the Revision Petitioner/ accused had admitted the issuance of cheques in question and since the Respondent/complainant had also proved the execution of the cheques by valid evidence, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would arise in favour of the complainant, as the Revision Petitioner/ accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by letting in valid and convincing evidence.

15. Both the courts below have held that there is no contra evidence on the side of the Revision Petitioner/accused to show that the cheque in question were misused by the complainant and that there is convincing evidence let in by the Respondent/Complainant that the cheques in question was issued by the Respondent/ Complainant. Further, the dishonour of the cheque in question is also not denied by the Revision Petitioner/accused. Consequently, both the courts below have rightly held that the cheque in question was drawn to discharge the legally enforceable debt as per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, the accused/ Revision Petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, by the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of the courts below, convicted and sentenced the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and to pay Rs.4,91,838/- being the cheque amount.

16. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner/ accused did not choose to let in any evidence, whatsoever before the Trial Court. Even before this Court, apart from not complying with the earlier orders of this Court, as stated above, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused is not able to point out any single piece of evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of his contentions. But, on the side of the Respondent/Complainant, this Court finds that there are ample evidence in support of the case of the Respondent/Complainant, as discussed by the courts below. The Revision Petitioner/ accused has not denied the issuance of the cheque in question and also dishonour of the same. The Revision Petitioner/ accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, this court, while concurring with the findings of both the courts below, does not find any error or illegality or perversity in the findings of the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of both the courts below, which warrants interference by this Court and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case, is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, in view of the above said discussions and reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The judgments passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track No.IV at George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.1220 of 2015, and confirmed by the learned XXIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.303 of 2023 stands confirmed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, if any, is also dismissed. The File is consigned to record.

18. The courts below are directed to take immediate and appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure the presence of the petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence and to recover the compensation amount, if any.

19. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Court concerned for its necessary compliance and information.