George vs Raman

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The revision Petitioner is the Appellant in C.A. No. 123 of 2006 pending on the file of the Additional District

Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli. He was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No. 279 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Valliyoor and he was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, vide order dated 15.05.2006. The Petitioner herein challenging the vires of the same, preferred the above

appeal.

Pending disposal of the Appeal, the Petitioner herein has filed a Petition in Cr.M.P. No. 132 of 2006 u/s 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

stating that he has paid the entire amount to the Respondent/complainant, on 08.08.2002 and 27.08.2002 and due to the fact that his counsel has

colluded with the opponent, PW-1 was not cross-examined and therefore, prays for one more opportunity to recall and cross-examine PW-1 and

marked the document evidencing that he has paid the entire amount. The said application was opposed by the Respondent/complainant by filing

the counter stating among other things that on an earlier occasion, the Petitioner took out similar application and the same was dismissed and

challenging the legality of the same, he has preferred the Revision before this Court and the same was also dismissed and once again, the Petitioner

has approached the Lower Appellant Court with a similar relief that was rightly rejected. It is further stated in the counter that the only intention of

the Petitioner herein is to drag on the proceedings.

The Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli, after taking into consideration the averments made in the Petition and counter has dismissed the

application, vide order, dated 08.10.2010 and the challenge is made to the said order by filing the present revision.

Heard M/s. Jeyapaul Associates, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Gregory Retna Raj, learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent and this Court has also perused the typed set of documents.

The Petitioner on an earlier occasion, filed Cr.M.P. No. 197 of 2006 to recall PW-1 for cross examination. When the appeal was posted for

judgment, on 30.11.2006, the said petition was dismissed during February 2008 and accordingly, the revision filed before this Court in Crl.R.C.

No. 380 of 2008, challenging the said order, was also dismissed. The Petitioner once again came forward to present a petition seeking the similar

relief.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that since the Petitioner has been convicted for the commission of offence u/s

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden lies heavy on him to discharge the presumption and only on that purpose, the Petitioner has filed

a petition to recall and marked certain documents to show that the cheque amount has been settled in full .

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the only intention of the Petitioner is to drag on the proceedings

and on earlier occasion, he filed a similar application, which was dismissed, which has also ended in finality and therefore, the present endeavour

on the part of the Petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

This Court after taking into consideration the rival submissions, find merits in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent. When the appeal was posted for Judgment on 30.11.2006, the Petitioner filed application for similar relief and that was dismissed

and challenging the legality of the same, Crl.R.C. No. 380 of 2006 was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed. Because of the attitude

of the Petitioner in dragging on the proceedings by filing the application after application and the Lower Court is not in a position to pronounce the

Judgement. This Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court and finds no merits.

In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.