Asokan v. Ramesh

ORDER This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Kallakurichi made in CC.No.153 of 2021 Page2 of 10 dated 05.08.2025 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sentencing him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- to the complainant for the offence under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within 3 months and in default, further period of 3 months Simple Imprisonment, which was confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in CA.No.49 of 2025 dated 27.02.2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2.By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.23,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation, in default, to undergo further three months Simple Imprisonment.

3.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

¶4On 03.07.2026, this Court passed the following conditional order: Page3 of 10 ''Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the total cheque amount ordered to be paid is Rs.23,00,000/-. He submitted that 20% of the cheque amount has already been deposited before the trial Court in the garb of the order passed by the appellate Court. He further submitted that his client is further ready to deposit 30% of the remaining cheque amount within a period of four weeks and shall produce the deposit receipt before the next date fixed and upon production of such receipt, the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

¶2Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is allowed four weeks time from today to deposit the remaining 30% of the cheque amount before the trial Court and produce deposit receipt before this Court on the next date fixed and upon production of such receipt, application for suspension of sentence(SOS) will be considered.

¶3Put up this case under the caption for admission on

03.08.2026 before the appropriate bench.''

¶5Today when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2026, the petitioner has paid 50% of the fine amount i.e. 11,50,000/- (Rs.4,60,000/- + Rs.6,90,000/-) before the trial Court. In this regard, he has produced deposit receipt before this Court. Thus, the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

¶6This Court heard Mr.T.R.Ravi appearing for the learned counsel for the Page4 of 10 Revision Petitioner and considered his submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶7The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that on

13.08.2021, the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondent for his financial needs. The petitioner is alleged to have issued two cheque bearing No.109666 dated 20.09.2021 in favour of the respondent towards discharging liability in respect of an agreement dated 20.09.2021 entered into between them. When the same was presented before the Bank for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement 'Fund Insufficient'. After issuance of statutory notice, since the petitioner has not repaid the cheque amount, a complaint was filed before the trial Court against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶8The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that there is a legally enforceable debt involved in this case. The Courts below ought to have seen that the accused issued a reply notice dated 30.10.2021 at the earliest point of time stating that he knows one person viz., Mohan belongs to the Village of the complainant. The accused received a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- on 10.07.2017 and a sum of Rs.3,22,000/- on 31.01.2018 and on compulsion he issued unfilled Page5 of 10 five empty cheques including the cheque in dispute in this case along with signed 5 bond papers, two empty green papers and two signed stamp papers. Subsequently, due to misunderstanding and dispute between the above said Mohan without knowledge and consent of the accused, the cheque in dispute was given to the complainant in order to file the above said case with false allegation. The Courts below ought to have seen that the source of income of the complainant was not satisfactorily explained before the Court and such a huge amount of Rs.23,00,000/- cannot be given to anybody without any supporting documents. 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. Therefore, the judgment rendered by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

9.It 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 prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

10.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the Page6 of 10 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 undertake that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

11.The learned counsel 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 evidences and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioner at this stage, be refused by this Court.

12.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned counsel 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 placed before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail. Page7 of 10

13.Further, it is observed that when the accused had 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.

14.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.

15.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, Asokan, S/o.Arumugam, on the following conditions:- ''(i) The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, 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 Page8 of 10 released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), subject to furnishing an 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 Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, once in every month, i.e., on 5th 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 bond and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

(v) The realization of the fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.''

¶17With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 03-08-2026 rli Note to office: issue order copy on 04.08.2026 Page9 of 10 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.

¶2The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi. CRLoMPoNo.o11424oofo2026 SHAMIMoAHMED,oJ. rli CRLoMPoNo.o11424oofo2026 IN CRLoRCoNO.o1346oOFo2026 03-08-2026 Page10oofo10

Page1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED IN CRL RC NO. 1346 OF 2026 Asokan S/o. Arumugam ..Petitioner(s) Vs Ramesh S/o. Nalliyappan ..Respondent(s) Prayer: To Suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Kallakurichi made in CC.No.153 of 2021 dated 05.08.2025 convicting the petitioner U/s 138 of NI Act sentencing him to undergo 1 year SI and to pay a compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- to the complainant U/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within 3 months and in default further period of 3 months SI which was confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions judge Kallakurichi in CA.No.49 of 2025 dated 27.02.2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision pending on the file of this Honourable Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.R.Ravi