K.Veeramani v. E.Velu

ORDER

1.This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, in Crl.A.638 of 2024, dated 09.10.2025, by the XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 02.08.2024, made in S.T.C.No.919 of 2021, by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

2.By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows: Petitioner Conviction Sentence Sole accused u/s.138 of NI Act To undergo 6 months SI and to pay compensation of cheque amount of Rs.85 lakhs, in default, to undergo further period of two months SI

¶3Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.763 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶4This Court heard Mr. C.S.Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.Snehan Kandasamy, learned counsel for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶5The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have issued cheque for Rs.85,00,000/- in favour of the respondent and when the same was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured. Hence a complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in STC.No.919 of 2021. He further submitted that the Courts below have failed to see the important ingredient of section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act is to sign before the notary in the power of attorney, whereas, in the Ex.P.1, the principal has not signed. Both the courts have miserably failed to appreciate that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity by way of producing income tax returns for the relevant period for lending such a huge amount of Rs.85,00,000/-. In the light of the above infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the Courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond any doubt. It was further argued that the learned Trial Court as well as appellate Court also failed to notice the discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses and the crystal part of the evidences was not at all assessed by both the Courts below. It was further argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶6It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioner has a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶7Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioner undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶8The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the judgements passed by the Courts below are as per the law, after considering the entire evidence and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioner, at this stage, be refused by this Court.

¶9Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed without considering the entire materials place before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶10Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

11.The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶12Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, Mr.K.Veeramani, Son of Kalimuthu on the following conditions:- i.The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each , subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision. ii.The Revision Petitioner and sureties shall affix their Photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the above said Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. iii.The Petitioner shall appear before the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, once in every month, ie., on 3rd day of every month commencing from the month of September 2026 at

10.30 a.m., until further orders. iv.On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision. With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

22.07.2026 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No msr To

1.The XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai,

2.The XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai

SHAMIM AHMED, J. msr in Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2026

22.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED in Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2026 K.Veeramani ... Revision Petitioner Vs E.Velu ... Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C/Sec.438(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in S.T.C.No.919 of 2021 on 02.08.2024 having been confirmed by the learned XVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.638 of 2024 on 09.10.2025 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision. For Revision Petitioner : Ms. C.S.Dhanasekar for Mr.P.Gunaraj For Respondent : Mr. Snehan Kandasamy