logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6164 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CRL. RC. No. 1244 of 2026 & CRL. M.P. Nos. 10096 & 10097 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Parties : K. Thangavel Versus Palanisamy
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. Surya for W. Camyles Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondent: Notice not in ready.
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 -

Cases Referred:
Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in  (2010) 11 SCC 441
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to set aside the Judgment dated 07.04.2026 made in Crl.A.No.44 of 2025, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the conviction and sentence in the Judgment dated 25.02.2025 made in STC No.849 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal and acquit the Petitioner.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to set aside the judgment dated 07.04.2026 passed in C.A. No.44 of 2025 which was dismissed on 07.04.2026 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The said judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2025 made in STC No.849 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal and acquit the Petitioner.

2. This Court vide order dated 19.06.2026 passed the following order which is reproduced as under:

                   The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the lower appellate court, the petitioner is now ready to deposit 50% of the compensation amount before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal to the credit of STc.No.849 of 2022. the learned counsel prays for three weeks time to deposit the said amount and to produce the deposit receipt in this regard before this Court and also prays that the application of sentence may be considered on the next date of hearing fixed.

                   2. Accordingly, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, three weeks time is allowed to the Petitioner to deposit further 50% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court to the credit of STC.No.849 of 2022 and produce the deposit receipt before this Court on the next date of hearing fixed.”

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is not in a position to comply with the interim condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2026. By the said order, at request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted three weeks time to deposit 50% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court to the credit of STC No. 849 of 2022. The learned counsel further submits that since the condition cannot be complied with, the matter may be decided finally on its merits.

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

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After a thorough consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2025 in S.T.C. No. 849 of 2022, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and directed to pay a compensation sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) within a period of Two months, and in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A. No.44 of 2025. In the memorandum of grounds, the petitioner contended that the Courts below failed to note that there was an unexplained material alteration in the cheque and that no documents were filed by the respondent/complainant as to the proof of his financial capacity to lend the loan amount as stated in the complaint. The petitioner argued that he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption through the cross-examination of PW1, relying on the settled legal position in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in  (2010) 11 SCC 441. However, the learned Appellate Court, after reassessing the entire evidence and hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.04.2026, thereby confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

7. This Court has carefully considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The courts below have explicitly noted that the respondent/complainant successfully proved the execution of the cheque and the subsistence of a legally enforceable debt. The petitioner failed to robustly rebut the statutory presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The contentions regarding alteration in the cheque were duly considered and rightly rejected by the courts below based on the evidence available on record.

8. Furthermore, on a specific request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had passed an equitable conditional order on 19.06.2026 directing a deposit of 50% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court. The failure to comply with this order, coupled with the submission made today that the petitioner is unable to pay, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is neither ready to clear any part of the liability nor respect the orders of the Court. It is well-settled that a criminal revision is not a second appeal. In the absence of any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below, this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The judgments passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 1, Namakkal in S.T.C. No.849 of 2022 and confirmed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No. 44 of 2025 stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. 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.

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