CRL RC/919/2024 of MOORTHY Vs A.RAJA on 10 November 2026

ORDER

This matter is posted today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the Registry.

2. The STC No. is wrongly mentioned as “STC No.209 of 2022” instead of “STC No.209 of 2020” in the first paragraph of the order.

3. The Registry is directed to issue an order copy afresh forthwith by correcting the STC No. in paragraph No.1 of the order as follows: The revision challenges the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge [FTC], Villupuram, in CA No.36 of 2022, confirming the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, in STC No.209 of 2020, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and passing a sentence of six months simple imprisonment, with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs.

4. Time is extended by another two weeks from the date of receipt of online copy of this order to pay the fine of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only). 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk CRL RC No. 919 of 2024 10-11-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 03-09-2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10-09- 2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 919 of 2024 Moorthy S/o. Gunasekaran, NO.3, Sakthi Ganapathi Nagar, Gondur Post, Cuddalore Taluk and District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs A.Raja S/o. Arumugam, No.309, GRP Street, Villupuram. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgement dated 30.04.2023 passed in CA.36 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupuram, confirming the judgement dated 23.08.2022 passed in STC.No.209/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram and set aside the same. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Om Sai Ram For Respondent(s): No Appearance

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge [FTC], Villupuram, in CA No.36 of 2022, confirming the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, in STC No.209 of 2022, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and passing a sentence of six months simple imprisonment, with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs.

2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.3 Lakhs towards repayment of the loan amount of Rs.3 Lakhs received by him from the respondent; that when the cheque was presented for collection it was dishonoured for the reason, ‘funds insufficient’; and that inspite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make the payment.

3. Before the trial Court, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to ExP3. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

4. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, based on the evidence, as the petitioner had not discharged his liability to rebut the statutory presumption and therefore, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had nothing to do with the respondent; that the petitioner had established his defence case that he had subscribed to a chit business run by one Velan, who is a practising Lawyer and the cheque in question was issued as a security to him, which has been misused through the respondent to lodge a complaint against him and his wife; that the respondent had neither established his source of income nor the reason for handing over such a huge sum of Rs.3 Lakhs to the petitioner; and that therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and is liable to be set aside.

6. Though notice had been issued to the respondent and a learned counsel had entered appearance, there was no representation for the respondent or the learned counsel on 14.08.2026, on 01.09.2026 and even on 03.09.2026. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision on merits in the absence of the respondent.

7. It is seen from the evidence adduced by the respondent before the trial Court that the petitioner had admitted his signature in the cheque. The respondent had also established that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. The respondent had issued statutory notice which was marked as Ex.P3. The petitioner had not sent any reply to the said notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the statutory notice was never sent to him. Though the petitioner’s counsel in the cross-examination has suggested to the respondent that he had misused the cheque given to one Velan Advocate and had filed the complaint, the same has been denied by the respondent. The petitioner has not substantiated his case either by pointing out any inherent improbabilities in the evidence or by adducing any independent evidence. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the findings of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is modified and the petitioner is instead directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,25,000/- within a period of four weeks and in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment. The respondent shall be paid a compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- from and out of the fine amount paid by the petitioner.

9. It is reported that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the cheque amount to the credit of STC No.209 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram. The said sum, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the fine payable by the petitioner.

10. With the above modification in the sentence imposed, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ars

SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars To

1. The Additional District Judge (FTC), Villupuram.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram. Pre-delivery order in CRL RC No. 919 of 2024 10-09-2026