CRL RC/1008/2026 of V.Kalaivani Vs K.Selvaraj on 22 September 2026

Order

The criminal revision has been filed, challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2025 passed in CA.No.145 of 2021 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the Judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed in STC.No.87 of 2016, by the learned Fast Track Court II at Magisterial Level, Erode, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentencing her to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. (i) It is the case of the respondent herein that the petitioner / accused was known to him; that on 10.10.2014 she obtained a hand loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant for urgent expenses; that in discharge of the said liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing number 053675 dated 10.11.2014; that when the said cheque was presented for collection to City Union Bank on 10.11.2014, it was dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'; and that inspite of statutory notice issued on 17.11.2014, the petitioner did not make any payment.

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026

(ii) Before the trial Court, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

(iii) The trial Court found that the signature in the cheque has not been disputed; that the respondent had established the foundational facts, namely that the cheque was issued in favour of his proprietary concern; that the cheque when presented for collection, had returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'; and that inspite of the statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment. The trial Court found that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced her as stated above. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the complaint itself is not maintainable and consequently, the finding of guilt cannot be sustained; that the drawee of the cheque is one 'Southern Electronics'; that the statutory notice was not issued by 'Southern Electronics' and it was only issued by the respondent; that the

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 offence under Section 138 of the NI Act would be made out only if payment is not made pursuant to a legally valid notice under Section 138 of the NI Act; and that since the notice issued in this case is not legally valid, the petitioner would not be liable for any offence.

(ii) The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 2019 and would state that the condition under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act has to be strictly complied with; that even a typographical error in the statutory notice can be no defence; and that the mentioning of the wrong cheque amount in the notice would render the notice defective.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that 'Southern Electronics' is the proprietary concern; that the respondent is its Proprietor; that the petitioner was aware of this fact; that the petitioner had not chosen to respond to the statutory notice issued by the respondent; and that the proprietary concern is not a legal entity and the Proprietor is entitled to pursue the proceedings, although the concern's

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 name is shown as the drawee. She relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 16970 of 2017 dated 05.03.2021 in support of her submission that the proprietary concern is not a legal entity and the prosecution could have been launched only by the proprietor. The learned counsel would also submit that in order to dispel any doubt, the respondent had also filed an amendment petition, which was allowed by the trial Court in which the respondent is shown as Selvaraj, Proprietor of 'Southern Electronics'; that the said order was also not challenged; and that therefore, the point raised by the petitioner does not merit acceptance, especially since both the Courts below had concurrently rejected the contention of the petitioner.

5. Considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the judgments of the Courts below.

6. It is seen from the perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court that the respondent had proved the foundational facts, namely that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the proprietary concern, viz., 'Southern Electronics'; that the cheque was

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 dishonoured; and that inspite of statutory notice, the payment was not made by the petitioner.

7. The Courts below also found that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption and that though the petitioner had cross- examined the respondent, nothing has been elicited to rebut the statutory presumption and the petitioner had not let in any evidence as stated above. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption cannot be faulted, and this Court sees no reason to interfere in the said findings.

8. As regards the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice is defective and therefore, the conviction is not in accordance with law, it is seen that the cause title in the case has been amended and the respondent had shown that he is the proprietor of 'Southern Electronics', the drawee of the cheque. The petitioner had not let in any evidence to show that the respondent is not the proprietor of 'Southern Electronics', or that the 'Southern Electronics' was a separate legal entity.

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026

9. In the light of the above factual position, the notice issued by the respondent, calling upon the petitioner to make the payment in his capacity as Proprietor, though he had not mentioned that the cheque was issued in the name of the proprietary concern, does not invalidate the legal notice in any manner. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Kaveri Plastics' case [supra], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the cheque amount is not correctly mentioned in the notice, it would invalidate the notice and the complaint, would not enure in favour of the petitioner. In this case, the cheque amount has been correctly stated and hence, the demand is correct.

10. In this case, the proprietor had issued the notice and he could not have issued any notice in the name of the concern, which is not a legal entity. The only error, if at all committed by the respondent, is that while issuing the notice, he had not mentioned that he is the proprietor of the concern, 'Southern Electronics'. This error would not invalidate the notice as it is not established by the petitioner that she had no transaction with the respondent / his concern. In fact, the petitioner had also not

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 chosen to send any reply notice. That apart, this technical error has also been rectified in the complaint by filing an amendment petition which was allowed pending trial. As stated above, the petitioner has neither challenged that order nor let in any evidence to the contrary.

11. Therefore, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the alleged defect in the notice would not be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below are in accordance with law and hence, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. The judgments of the Courts below are confirmed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ars

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

2. The Fast Track Court II at Magisterial Level, Erode.

CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 SUNDER MOHAN J. ars CRL RC No. 1008 of 2026 and CRL MP No. 8025 of 2026 22-09-2026