V. MOHAN Vs. M. SHERIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused questioning the correctness of the Judgment dated 18.11.2008 made in Crl.A.No. 154 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment dated 17.04.2008 made in C.C. No. 2303 of 2003 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai..

(2.) THE case of the respondent/complainant is that the complainant and accused were running a partnership firm in the name and style of SMJ Freight Movers? and it was dissolved on 02.11.2001 and therefore, the accused has to pay Rs.15,00,000/ - to the complainant. For that amount, the accused has issued a cheque for Rs.16,72,000/ -, dated 18.10.2002. When the cheque was presented for collection on 07.02.2003, it returned with an endorsement insufficient funds? on 08.02.2003. On 15.02.2003, the complainant issued a statutory notice. Since, the accused has not come forward to pay the cheque amount, a private complaint was lodged and the same was taken in C.C. No. 2303 of 2003 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ - as compensation to the complainant within three months, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by judgment dated 17.04.2008. On appeal, the Appellate Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence from two years simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment and the compensation amount was reduced to Rs.17,00,000/ -. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused.Today, the matter is listed under the caption, for dismissal?. Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that he is not able to contact his client, actually, he has returned the bundle to him, therefore, he is not in a position to argue the case. In this matter, adjournment has been given atleast for eight hearings right from 2012. Even as early as on 28.11.2012, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned by two weeks. Thereafter, on 04.12.2012, there was no representation for the petitioner, hence, the matter was adjourned by two weeks. Again, when the matter was posted on 18.12.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. Time was granted till 21.01.2013. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 21.01.2013. On that day, further time of two weeks was granted. This again continued in the years 2013 and 2014. In the year 2015, adjournment was given twice and thereafter, the matter is posted for dismissal on 09.06.2015. Even on that date, there was no representation for the petitioner. With a view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed next week and that is how this matter is posted today (i.e., 25.06.2015). If the petitioner's counsel has given change of vakalat, the accused should have utilised the adjournment time granted to engage a new counsel, but, so far, no other counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner/accused. This kind of practice is deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex in the judgment reported in : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721, K.S. Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka, 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.) MR .R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant would submit that the petitioner/accused has induced the respondent/complainant to start a partnership business and it was started on 04.07.2001, for which, the complainant has invested Rs.15,00,000/ -, but, however, the partnership business was dissolved on 02.11.2001 and therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the invested amount. For return of money of Rs.16,72,800/ - a cheque was issued by the accused way back on 18.10.2002. When the cheque was dishonoured, a statutory notice was issued on 15.02.2003 and since, no payment was forthcoming, the complaint was lodged.