Madras High Court
CRL RC/1274/2019 of VISWANATHAN Vs SENTHIL KUMAR on 22 September 2026
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 1274 of 2019
CNR: {HCMA012015182019}
Viswanathan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Senthil Kumar
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in C.A.No.22 of 2018 dated 27.06.2019 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi in S.T.C.No.1354 /2017 dated 25.04.2018 sentencing to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation/ default one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.G.Dinesh
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
It is seen that the Criminal Revision Case was initially dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.3787 of 2025, seeking restoration. On 14.03.2025, when the said restoration
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
petition was listed for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner and hence, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) to ensure the presence of the petitioner and listed the case on 24.03.2025. It appears that on 11.12.2025, there as representation for the petitioner and this Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue has been resolved and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) had been handed over to the respondent. Thereafter, on 19.01.2026, when the case was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge directed the revision to be listed under the caption "for dismissal". Even thereafter, there was no representation, hence, this Court appointed Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, learned Legal Aid Counsel, to represent the petitioner to decide the case on merits.
2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had obtained hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) from the complainant to meet out his family expenses and to repay the said amount, he issued a cheque dated 14.10.2016 of State Bank of India, Needamangalam Branch; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned for reason "funds insufficient"; that in spite of statutory notice dated 14.11.2016, the petitioner neither sent a reply nor made the payment.
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined himself as P.W1 and examined one Rajkumar as P.W2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P4. The petitioner had examined one Kandhavel as D.W1 and did not mark any documents. The Trial Court found that the respondent had established the foundational facts, namely that the cheque was signed by the petitioner; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned for the reason "funds insufficient" and that in spite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make the payment. The Trial Court disbelieved D.W1, as his evidence appeared to be improbable and held that the petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
4. As could be seen, the respondent established the fact that the cheque was signed by the petitioner and the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" by marking Exhibits P1 to P4. The only defence to the petitioner is that D.W1 had obtained loan from a Financier and as security, the petitioner had handed over the cheque to the complainant. The evidence of D.W1 is artificial, opposed to human conduct and in any case, as rightly held by the Courts below, is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.
5. This Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the findings of the Courts below. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mannargudi, shall take steps to secure the petitioner to serve the sentence.
6. The High Court Legal Service Authority shall pay the scheduled remuneration to Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mannargudi.
2. The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )
CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.1274 of 2019 22-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )