G.Padmanaban vs K.M.Periyasamy
Decided on: 10.08.2023
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S ATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.RC.No.1042 of 2019
Introduction:
G.Padmanaban vs K.M.Periyasamy is a criminal revision petition that was filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The case revolves around the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, G. Padmanaban, who was the accused, in S.T.C.No.6 of 2014. The conviction was based on charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Background:
The petitioner, G. Padmanaban, was accused of issuing a blank cheque to a complainant, K.M. Periyasamy, who alleged that the cheque was dishonored when presented for payment. The complainant had initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner based on this dishonored cheque, leading to the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner.
Procedural History:
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in C.A.No.25 of 2019 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. However, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s judgment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the criminal revision petition, Crl.R.C.No.1042 of 2019, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Key Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court and the appellate court failed to adequately consider the evidence in favour of the accused. The defence maintained that the complainant and the accused were not acquainted, and the statutory notice sent by the complainant was returned unserved. The accused contended that he had not received any loan from the complainant and that the blank cheque he had issued earlier was misused.
The defence further emphasized that the complainant’s textile business had suffered significant losses, and he had closed down his business a decade before filing the complaint. The defence aimed to establish that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to extend a loan, challenging the credibility of the complainant’s claims.
Court’s Analysis:
Upon reviewing the submissions and arguments, the court observed that the trial court and the appellate court had properly considered the evidence, including the cross-examination of the complainant (P.W.1). The courts noted that the complainant’s lack of knowledge about the accused’s address and the sale of his textile business a decade prior to the complaint were significant points raised during the cross-examination.
However, the court reiterated that the revision court’s role was not to re-evaluate the evidence as an appellate court would. Instead, the court emphasized that the appellate court had already assessed the evidence and affirmed the trial court’s findings. The court acknowledged the legal principle that when the accused does not enter the witness box or provide witnesses to support their defence, the prosecution’s evidence becomes paramount.
Conclusion:
In the final analysis, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the criminal revision petition (Crl.R.C.No.1042 of 2019). The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, which found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that the revision court’s scope was limited, and it could not reassess the evidence anew. The case underscores the importance of a robust defence and the challenges of revisiting evidence in a revision proceeding.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
