MARTIN FELIX CELVIA Vs. M M NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused totally borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on three different dates and promised to repay the same within four months. After four months, when the complainant approached the accused and demanded the amount, the accused issued a cheque Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had presented the cheque for collection. The said cheque returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice. Though, the accused received the notice, she did not come forward to pay the money payable to the complainant and hence, the complaint. The case is taken on file in S.T.C.No.1297 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. After trial, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 r/w. 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has preferred C.A.No. 141 of 2010 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam. The Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 09.08.2011, confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused.

(2.) On previous occasions, continuously, there was no representation for the petitioner. When the matter was taken up on 02.06.2014, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be posted next week under the caption, "for dismissal". On 12.06.2014, when the matter was taken up, again there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2014 seeking to set aside the order dated 12.06.2014 and it was restored to file. Thereafter, at the intervention of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the matter was directed to be posted before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. Even before the Mediation, the petitioner's counsel did not appear and therefore, the matter was posted before the regular Court. Again when the revision was taken up on 26.06.2015, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 03.07.2015 under the caption, "for dismissal" and thereafter, again it was adjourned by two weeks under the same caption "for dismissal". Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is present and sought for an adjournment, though, the case is listed today under the caption "for dismissal", this kind of practice is deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex in the judgment, K.S.Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 3 SCC 721 and has held that the Court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has culled out certain principles and in paragraph No.19 has held as follows:-

(3.) The only point which has been raised by the petitioner in the grounds of revision is that the Trial Court did not give sufficient time or opportunity for the petitioner/accused to establish her case through competent witnesses.