IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 30.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2007 1.M/s. Madha Transport rep by its proprietor Mr.P.Ponraj No.4/29, Gandhi road West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045 2.P.Ponraj .. Petitioners/ Accused Vs Bhoopalan .. Respondent/ Complainant Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CR.P.C against the judgment dated 09.01.2007 in Crl.A.No.34 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet modifying the judgment dated 01.03.2006 in C.C.No.1008/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. For Petitioners : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R This revision arises against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet passed in Crl.A.No.34 of 2006 on 09.01.2007. The 1st petitioner is proprietor concern of the 2nd petitioner. The respondent preferred a complaint in C.C.No.1008/2004 informing that the 2nd petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his business purpose and towards repayment there of issued a cheque for such sum. The borrowal of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on 03.05.2004 and the cheque was dated 03.05.2004. The respondent presented for payment on 04.06.2004, and the same was returned for the reason "insufficient funds". Following the procedure under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the respondent preferred the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Before the trial court, the respondent examined two witnesses and marked eight exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the petitioner/ accused nor any exhibits were marked. 3. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted the petitioners. As against the sentence of the trial court directing the term of two years rigorous imprisonment on the 2nd petitioner/proprietor and requiring him to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and directing further period of imprisonment in the event of compensation not being paid as ordered,(which finding would be opposed to law) the Lower Appellate Court modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- stipulating a default sentence of one year simple imprisonment. It directed that the fine amount be paid over to the respondent/complainant as compensation. There is repeatedly no representation on behalf of the respondent. 4. On perusal of the entire records, this court find justified with the order of the conviction passed by the courts below. There is hardly any material to support the petitioner/defence contentions. The respondent has satisfied the trial court of due receipt of cheque and followed the procedure laid under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in preferring the complaint. He also examined P.W.2 - Bank Manager who spoke to the cheque being that drawn on the account of the petitioner and the same being returned for the reason "in sufficient funds". Such witnesses has also spoken to a mere balance of Rs.11/- in the same account. 5. Given the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below. However, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate and accordingly direct that the sentence in the case shall be as follows: "The 2nd petitioner/proprietor shall pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs in default undergo six months simple imprisonment." Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet 2.Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 1 cc to Mr.M. V. Muralidaran, Advocate, Sr. 61346 Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2007 SS (CO) kk 2/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/