GANAPATHI UDAYAR Vs. T A CHINNAYYA MUDALIAR
LAWS(MAD)-1952-8-6
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 06,1952

GANAPATHI UDAYAR Appellant
VERSUS
T.A.CHINNAYYA MUDALIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a criminal revision case sought to be filed against the conviction and sentence of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Vellore in C. C. No. 49 of 1951 and confirmed in C. A. No. 132 of 1951 by the Sessions Judge of North Arcot.
(2.) THE facts are: P. W. 1 Chinniah Mudaliar is a landowner and moneylender of Tiruppak-kadal. The accused borrowed from this P. W. 1 a sum of Rs. 800 on 27-12-1948 and executed the promissory note Ex. P. 1. On 5-10-1949 a sum of Rs. 114 was paid towards interest and an endorsement to that effect Ex. P. l (a) was made on Ex. P. 1 by the accused himself and Kuppuswarni attested it. Two months prior to December 1950 the accused gave Rs. 36-8-0 in instalments and when asked to give more the accused is stated to have asked P. W. 1 to come to his village 2 or 3 days later. On 15-12-1950 P. W. 1 went to accused village and asked the accused to come to the house of P. W. 2 Kuppuswarni. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were waiting. As requested, the accused came to P. W. 2's house. The accused told P. Ws. 1 and 2 that he had brought Rs. 13-8-0 to make up Rs. 50 placed the money near P. W. 2 and asked for the promissory note to be given to him. P. W. 1 gave the promissory note to P. W. 2 who in turn gave it to the accused and the accused wrote an endorsement while P. W. 2 was counting the money. When the promissory note was handed over to P. W. 2 it was found that the accused had made an endorsement of payment of Rs. 750 instead of Rs. 50. On being questioned the accused said "come to my house. I will give the entire amount" and took the cash of Rs. 13-8-0 with him and went away on his bicycle. P. Ws 1 and 2 gave chase to the accused. P. W. 3 Dhanakoti Pillai who knows P. W. 1 well saw P. Ws. 1 and 2 coming by his street at about 9-30 a. m. and the accused going at a distance on a bicycle. P. Ws. 1 and 2 sought the assistance of P. W. 3 to hail the accused to stop. P. W. 3 did so and the accused went away without heeding him. P. W. 3 learnt from P. Ws. 1 and 2 as to what had happened. Then these three persons chased the accused and met him on the road Kadai. On being questioned there by P. W. 3 the accused stated "what has been entered as payment has been entered as payment" and left the place. Thereupon P. W. 1 went and reported to the Sub Inspector of Police who directed them to go to the Munsif's Court apparently thinking that it was a civil matter. P. W. 1 consulted the vakils, went to Vellore got a complaint prepared and filed it as a private complaint. In the course of the enquiry the version of P. Ws. 1 to 3 set out above was corroborated by two others P. Ws. 4 and 5, respectable inhabitants of the place. The testimony of P. W. 4 is that while he was sitting in his house at about 9-30 a. m. on the day in question he saw the accused who told him that he was going to P. W. 2's house to repay his dues to P. W. 1 and that a few minutes later he saw the accused going away followed by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and that from P. Ws. 1 and 2 he learnt all that had happened. P. W. 5 also spoke to a similar story.
(3.) THE case for the accused in the Court was that as a matter of fact he had paid Rs. 750 towards the note and that P. W. 2 Kuppuswami had concocted this false story of nonpayment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.