V.Palaniappan v. V.Sagayaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL MP NO. 11485 OF 2026 in V.Palaniappan S/o Vaithianathan, No.78, Bharathiyar Street, Karaikal ..Petitioner(s) Vs V.Sagayaraj S/o Viyagulasamy, Proprietor, M/s Alpha Builders, No.22/1, Perumal Koil Street, Karaikal ..Respondent(s) To Suspend the sentence imposed in STC.1052 of 2022 dated 03.09.2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate -I, Karaikal, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikkal in Crl.A.No.13 of 2025, dated 01.06.2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R.Vivekananthan
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner
in Crl.A.No.13 of 2025, dated 01.06.2026, by the Sessions Judge, Karaikkal in , confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 03.09.2025 made in STC.No.1052 of 2022, by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Karaikal, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.
1. By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence as follows:
Petitioner Conviction Sentence A2 U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant, in default, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment.
2.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.1349 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision. 3.This Court heard Mr. R.Vivekanandan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and considered his submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.
4.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque bearing No.040773, dated 24.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- in favour of the respondent and
towards discharging liability in respect of an agreement dated 19.02.2015 entered into between them. When the same was presented for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement 'Fund Insufficient'. After issuance of statutory notice, since the petitioner has not repaid the cheque amount, a complaint was filed against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the courts below have failed to consider that mere admission of signature on the cheque is sufficient to establish liability against the petitioner and the complainant has to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt as a foundational requirement. There is material inconsistency regarding the liability of the accused persons.
Both the courts below have failed to examine whether the petitioner/A2 had any independent liability towards the complainant or whether the petitioner was merely connected with the transaction of the first Accused. The cheque was issued only as a security cheque in connected with the construction transaction and not towards discharge of any existing legally enforceable debt. In the light of the above infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the Courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond any doubt.
surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record. 5.It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now confined in jail and there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioner has a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.
6.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioner undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision. 7.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed without
considering the entire materials place before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail and now the petitioner is in jail. 8.Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance. 9.The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal.
Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future and the petitioner has been now confined in prison. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail. 10.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, V. Palaniappan, Son of Vaithianathan on the following conditions:- i. The Revision Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a bond before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karaikal, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each, subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision. ii.
copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. iii. The realization of fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.
iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karaikal, once in every month, ie., on the 3rd day of every month commencing from the month of August 2026 at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
v. On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.
With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 03-07-2026 MSR To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Karaikal
2. The Sessions Judge, Karaikal
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalapat, Pondicherry
SHAMIM AHMED J.
MSR CRL MP NO. 11485 OF 2026 in 03-07-2026