IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.4.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.Nos.424 and 425 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 1. Carton & Carton, rep. by its Partners, S.F.No.110/2, Udayediram Road, Chinna Varigam Village, Thuthipet Post 635 811, Ambur (via), Vellore District. 2. V.Irfathullah, Partner of M/s.Carton & Carton, No.14, Mottukollai West Street, Ambur, Vellore District. 3. Mrs.Zararia Parveena, Partner of M/s.Carton & Carton, No.14, Mottukollai West Street, Ambur, Vellore District. . Petitioners in both Crl.R.Cs./ Accused Vs. Industrial Paper Corporation, Rep. by its Power Agent Mr.R.Damodaran, No.17, Anderson Street, 1st Floor, Chennai-600 001. .. Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs./ Complainant Criminal Revision Case No.424 of 2010 against the order dated 4.2.2010 in M.P.No.2136 of 2009 in C.C.No.12241 of 2003 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Criminal Revision Case No.425 of 2010 against the order dated 4.2.2010 in M.P.No.2139 of 2009 in C.C.No.12240 of 2003 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. For petitioners in both Crl.R.Cs. : Mr.R.Thiagarajan For respondent in both Crl.R.Cs. : Mr.T.R.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The substitution petitions, dated 23.10.2009, were filed before the trial Court in M.P.Nos.2136 and 2139 of 2009 in C.C.Nos.12240 and 12241 of 2003 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and they were allowed by order dated 4.2.2010, against which, the present Crl.R.Cs. have been filed by the petitioners/accused. 2. Challenging the said order dated 4.2.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that already the Power Agent Mr.R.Damodharan in respect of the respondent/complainant/Industrial Paper Corporation was examined and he was not subjected for cross-examination and during the pendency of the cases, the respondent/complainant came forward with the substitution petitions to substitute Mr.Danmal Chandak instead of the earlier Power Agent Mr.R.Damodharan and so, an opportunity to cross-examine the said Damodharan has been curtailed and the trial Court has not considered this aspect in proper perspective and prayed for allowing the Crl.R.C. and to dismiss the substitution petitions. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant filed private complaints to punish the petitioners/accused under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the said private complaints were filed through the Power Agent R.Damodharan. It is true that the said R.Damodharan was examined in chief and he resigned his job and left the respondent-complainant-firm. He further submitted that after chief examination of the said R.Damodharan, sufficient time was given to the accused to cross examine him, but the accused has not availed of the opportunity and they have come forward with such a plea now and that factum has been properly considered by the trial Court, which correctly allowed the petitions for substitution and hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.Cs. 4. Considering the rival submissions and the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondent-complainant-firm, viz., M/s.Industrial Paper Corporation filed private complaints through its Power Agent R.Damodharan to punish the petitioners/accused under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is true that the said Damodharan was examined and the chief examination was over on 28.12.2004 and sufficient time was given, but the revision petitioners/accused has not cross-examined the witness and the questioning of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.c. was over on 14.2.2005 and when the cases were posted for defence witness, since the said Damodharan has resigned his job and left the respondent-complainant- firm, the respondent/complainant was forced to file the substitution petitions to substitute one of the partners of the Firm in the place of Damodharan. So, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners/accused that their opportunity to cross-examine the said Damodharan (Power Agent) has been curtailed, does not merit acceptance. 5. It is pertinent to note that it is the duty of the respondent/complainant to prove the guilt of the petitioners/accused under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the said Damodharan resigned his job from the respondent-complainant-firm, and the firm has to be represented by some person, and so, the substitution petitions were filed by the firm to substitute Mr.Danmal Chandak in the place Damodharan and the said substitution petitions were allowed by the impugned order. I do not find any irregularity or illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Hence, Crl.R.Cs. are devoid of merits and the same are accordingly dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 7. Since the main cases in C.C.Nos.12240 and 12241 are of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the cases on a day-to- day basis, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with records. 8. Registry is directed to despatch the order copy along with records to the trial Court within 20 days from today. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.(with records) 2.-do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. 3. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Ravi, Advocate Sr 25391 NG(CO) km/28.4. Crl.R.C.Nos.424 and 425 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/