K. EKAMBARAM Vs. DR. PREMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the judgment dtd. 20/12/2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee confirming the judgment dtd. 22/11/2017 made in S.T.C.No.73 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II (Magisterial Level), Poonamallee.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision, are as follows:-

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to consider the materials available in the cross-examination to the effect that there is a dispute between the Complainant and the Accused regarding purchase of property. The Complainant was unable to state clearly in his deposition the date of handing over the money to the Accused and record to that effect had not been written by him. As per the statutory notice, he claimed Rs.50,00,000.00 but he had preferred a Complaint for less than the amount claimed in the notice for Rs.10,00,000.00 only. Thus it is contradictory as to what was the liability of the Petitioner herein. The Complainant who is a Doctor by profession is unable to state clearly on which dates, he had handed over the money to the Accused. The Respondent/Complainant also did not mark any document to prove that he has the capacity to pay such a huge amount. This is a case where the cheque amount was filled up for imaginary amount as per the whims and fancies of the Complainant. When the Complainant claims that he had evinced interest to purchase the property which was found to be a Poramboke land, then, he ought to have sought refund of the money. Further, the Complainant had already filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 2016, which was not disclosed in the complaint. When there is a dispute regarding the property and such dispute is pending in Civil Court, the Complainant had preferred the Complaint against the Accused which is not maintainable in law. When the Complainant had sought civil remedy, he cannot seek criminal action against the Accused for the same transaction against him. The learned Judicial Magistrate failed to consider those aspects and had mechanically convicted the Accused based on the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.