AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present criminal revision case is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 06.07.2024 made in Crl.A.No.681 of 2023 confirming the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-V, Saidapet, Chennai dated 29.09.2023 made in C.C. No.6466 of 2017.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.22.00 Lakhs in the month of February, 2016 for developing his business. The respondent has parted the above said sum for which a promisory note was executed by the petitioner on 18.02.2026 to the tune of Rs.22.00 Lakhs. Pursuant to the issuance of the promissory note, the petitioner had issued two cheques bearing No.271035 dated 24.02.2017 for Rs.12,00,000/- and cheque No.860988 dated 24.02.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/-, both drawn on State Bank of India, Dasarathapuram Branch, Chennai. The above two cheques were presented to the State Bank of Travancore, Taramani Branch on 24.02.2017 and the same were returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" and the same was intimated through bankers memo dated 27.02.2017.
The respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dated 04.03.2017, and the same was received by the petitioner herein on 07.03.2017.
In the trial court, the respondent/complainant was examined as PW1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 on his side. On the side of the petitioner/accused neither a witness was examined nor a document was marked. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.271035 dated 24.02.2017, Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.860988 dated 24.02.2017, Ex.P3 is the Return memo of the bank dated 27.02.2017, Ex.P4 is the statutory legal notice dated 04.03.2017, Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment card and Ex.P6 is the Promissory Note.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-V, Saidapet, Chennai, upon considering the evidence of PW1 and the exhibits P1 to P6, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has wilfully allowed the cheques to get dishonoured on the ground of funds insufficient. Despite notice was received by the petitioner/accused, he has not repaid the amount. Hence, the trial court had found the petitioner/accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, convicted him of the said offence and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.22.00 Lakhs as compensation as contemplated under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Aggrieved by the above judgment and conviction of the trial court, the petitioner/accused has filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A. No.681 of 2023 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge concurred with the findings and the conviction of the trial court and confirmed the judgment of the trial court, vide judgment dated 06.07.2024.
As against the concurrent findings of the courts below, the present revision has been filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 8 months. Since the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for 8 months and also the default sentence of three months, which is the punishment imposed on the petitioner/accused, the trial court and the appellate court have failed to return the 20% of the cheque amount, which was deposited by the petitioner/acccused during pendency of the appeal. He further submitted that this court, on 06.09.2024, directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the cheque amount which comes around Rs.6,60,000/- to the credit of C.C. No.6466 of 2017 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-V, Saidapet within a specified time and further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is his further submission that, as the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditional order dated 06.09.2024, this court has passed an order vacating the order of granting the interim protection. The relevant paragraph of the order reads thus:
"2.It is seen that in this case, the cheque amount is Rs.22 lakhs and except for the deposit of Rs.4,40,000/- at the time of pendency of the appeal, which is 20% of the cheque amount, nothing has been paid thereafter. In view of the same, the interim granted by this court to the effect that "no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner' stands vacated. The respondent is at liberty to file an appropriate petition to execute the conviction warrant as directed by the lower appellate court."
It is the further contention of the petitioner that the question of paying compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. does not arise, as the petitioner/accused served the total period of sentence and the default sentence imposed by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have considered the evidence of PW1 and the exhibits Exs.P1 to P6 and upon being satisfied with the evidence and the exhibits, the trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner/accused and the appellate court has confirmed the same. It is his specific contention that the courts are empowered to order not only the return of cheque amount but also impose compensation and therefore, the cheque amount was imposed as fine by way of a compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and in default of the payment, the petitioner has to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record, in the form of typed set of papers.
The only question that arises for consideration in this criminal revision case is, whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of compensation amount, as he has undergone the full period of sentence including the default sentence?
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both, whereas in the case on hand, the trial court has imposed a sentence of 8 months alone and directed the petitioner/accused to pay a compensation of Rs.22.00 Lakhs under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the imprisonment certificate issued by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-I, Puzhal dated 14.02.2025 it would result in Sl. No.8 that the petitioner was admitted to the central prison as convict prisoner on 06.01.2025 and in Sl.No.21, it was stated that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of 1 month and 3 days and the remaining period of conviction as found in Sl. No.22 of the the certificate is 6 months 27 days and default sentence. The petitioner was released from the jail on 01.11.2025 as found in the Release Certificate dated 01.11.2025 issued by the Jailor, Central Prison-I (Convict), Puzhal, Chennai - 66 and stated that the petitioner was released from prison on expiry of sentence under Remission Rules having earned 34 days and default sentence. Thus the only point that was urged before this court is that, as the petitioner has undergone the imprisonment along with the default sentence, the question of payment of compensation, will not arise and the excess amount that was paid pursuant to the direction of this court, has to be returned to the accused herein.
In this regard, it is appropriate to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumaran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2017) 7 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex court in paragraph No.27 of the said judgment held as under:
3 - 7$'/% % & ! ' % / ! ! ( ' , ! " 0$ ! 6 ' ' 3 0 / ! " ! " - ! / $) ! ' / - ! %) % +) ,% %$ 0 ! $' ' )) , / ' ! , ! %) $ ' ! 4 8 9 - 3 ) - - 0 ! % ! 3 ' % / ) 1 ! - )) , ! 8 9 - " ' ) ! ) ) 1 ! 8 9 % & ! , ' ) ,% () ! %) $ " - ! - $ ' ! , , ! 4 8 9 ' 4 8 9 ) 0 / " / ! %) 0 ' ! ' 0 ) '" 0 $ ' ! 4 8 9" ! " ! ' ! 8 9 ) 1 - $ ' % & ! 0, / ! " 1 $/ ' $ ! 0 $ '" , " ! %) - $ ' 0 ! 1 0 % ) 1 ' ' $ ' ! 8 9 3 - $ '" - 1 " 0 - $ ! , ! ' / , ) ! 3 0 ! $ ! 8 9 ) 1 ! ' 7$ ! 1 - / ! %% ' : - %% " ) 1 ' ! 68 9 $ ' 0 0 $ - 1, " 1 - ! %) % ' $ 0 $ , $ ' / 3 ) ' ) 1 ! 8 9 $ ! %% ' : - %% ! / , 0, - ! )) ! %) ) , 0 $ $ ' ! 4 8 9 '" 0, )) , / ! ! ' ! " ! %) ) , 0 $ ' ! 4 8 9 ; 3 / ! ! ' $ ' ! % ' )$ ) <! $ & ! 6< 3 ( <! " - ! < & : , ' : % ' 1 3 % '$" 8 9 ) " 6 3 $ ! 07 ! / ! ! ' 0, ! ( ' )$ ) ! 1 , ! %) $ $! ! 1 , ! %) '+ ' - $ ' ! , & $ , ! 0$ ! ' " ! %) ! % $ " 0 ' 0 1
In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the accused who has undergone the sentence under the defined clause, the compensation is recoverable, as provided in Section 421(1) Cr.P.C.
In view of the categorical finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra, the argument that was advanced on the side of the petitioner with regard to return of the amount, which was deposited by the petitioner/accused at the time of release, will not arise and he is not entitled for refund of the same, as the compensation was awarded under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In view of the same, the sentence, which was passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court and the compensation, which was paid by the petitioner, was not recoverable as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the same, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-V, Saidapet, Chennai dated 29.09.2023 made in C.C. No.6466 of 2017 and confirmed by the lower appellate court, namely Sessions Court @ Chennai in its judgment dated 06.07.2024 made in Crl.A. No.681 of 2023, does not call for any interference and accordingly, the same is confirmed.
In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. No costs.