High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.189 of 2023John Sebastian ... Petitioner Vs.Jenette Doyle... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records connected with the order passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.401 of 2019 by an order dated 11.11.2022 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, dated 31.10.2019 in C.C.No.3814 of 2016 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.S.SivaramanFor Respondent: Mrs.P.Deepika For Mr.R.ManickavelORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the judgment dated 11.11.2022, passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.401 of 2019, confirming the order dated Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 202331.10.2019, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, in C.C.No.3814 of 2016 thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”).2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the petitioner approached the respondent for a loan to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/- for their daughter's medical college admission. The petitioner also assured that after disposal of one of the movable property, the loan amount will be settled within short spam of time. Considering the said request, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- by way of cheque and cash payment from 27.02.2012 to 09.05.2013. The amount was paid from the joint account of the respondent and her husband and daughter. However, the petitioner failed to return the loan amount as assured by him. Later, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on several occasions by way of cheque. Still the petitioner was in due and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. Finally, the petitioner agreed to repay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards outstanding balance and the interest for the loan borrowed by the petitioner and issued cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It was presented for collection Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “insufficient fund”. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged complaint. 3.On the side of the respondent, he examined P.W.1 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. On the side of the petitioner, he examined D.W.1 & D.W.2 and marked documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found guilty of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation to the tune of cheque amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was absolutely no legally enforceable debt to issue cheque to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- by the petitioner herein. The petitioner's daughter completed her +2 examination only in the year 2013. Therefore, there was absolutely no need to borrow such a huge amount in the year 2012. Originally, the complaint was filed as against two accused. The second accused is the wife of the first accused. This Court was pleased to quash the entire proceedings as against the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023second accused in Crl.O.P.No.19199 of 2016 by an order dated 20.04.2017. The respondent's husband was jointly doing business with the petitioner. Therefore, the cheque which was now presented for collection, was issued for security purpose for the loan amount from the respondent's husband. After repaying the same, the cheque has been now misused by the respondent by presenting the same for collection. On receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner issued reply notices and the same were also marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. Hence the petitioner had rebutted the presumption arrived under Sections 118 & 139 of the NI Act. The petitioner also cross-examined the respondent to disprove the case of the respondent herein. Even then without considering the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was examined as D.W.1. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the respondent's family. In fact, the entire loan amount has been paid through cheque and money transaction. Therefore, though the petitioner issued reply notices and he himself examined as D.W.1, the petitioner failed to rebut the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023presumption and the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner. It was also rightly confirmed by the appellant and it doesn't require any interference from this Court. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7.The respondent had lent a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the remaining amount with interest, the petitioner had issued cheque for the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had taken specific plea that the cheque was issue for security purpose, he did not substantiate the same with any evidence. There was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to issue cheque for security purpose. In fact, the petitioner admitted the borrowal and repayment of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the remaining amount with interest, the petitioner issued cheque for the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, on perusal of the reply notice issued by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner simply denied the borrowal of loan amount for the reason his daughter joined medicine only in the year 2013, and therefore, there is absolutely no need to borrow loan in the year 2012 . Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 20238.The reply notice, further revealed that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way cheque as full and final settlement for the loan availed by the petitioner. Except for the same, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was also paid through cash and no other amount was released in favour of the respondent. Therefore, for the remaining amount of Rs.21,00,000/- and interest, the petitioner issued cheque. However, the petitioner failed to prove that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security. If at all the petitioner settled the entire amount, he would take steps to return back the cheque and other documents at the time of borrowal of loan. On receipt of the reply notices, the respondent also issued rejoinder and categorical denied the allegations levelled in the reply notices. 9.That apart, the petitioner himself was examined as D.W.1. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted the borrowal of loan as follows :-@/////tHf;F fhnrhiy vd;DilaJ jhd;/ mjid g[fhh;jhuhpd; fzthplk; g{h;j;jp bra;jplhj epiyapy; bfhLj;njd;/ fhnrhiyapy; cs;sJ vdJ ifbahg;gk;jhd;/ g[fhh;jhuhpd; fzthplk; vt;tst[ fld; bgw;nwd; vd;why; U:/21.00.000-? Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023bgw;nwd;/ g[fhh;jhuh; vdf;F mDg;gpa rl;lg;g{h;t mwptpg;g[ kw;Wk; mjw;F ehd; bfhLj;j gjpy; jtpu v';fSf;fpilapy; ntW vGj;JK:ykhd bjhlh;g[fs; VJk; ,y;iy///////@Further the entire loan amount was paid from the joint account of the respondent and her family members. It is also proved by the respondent by producing bank statement of account as Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.18 for the year 2012 and 2013. Therefore, the respondent discharged her initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner failed to rebut the same by preponderance of probability. In fact, the petitioner had categorically admitted that an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- remains to be paid. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and the same was also rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below and the revision fails. 10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 10.06.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderrtsPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,rtsTo 1.The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore.Crl.R.C.No.189 of 202310.06.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.189 of 2023John Sebastian ... Petitioner Vs.Jenette Doyle... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records connected with the order passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.401 of 2019 by an order dated 11.11.2022 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, dated 31.10.2019 in C.C.No.3814 of 2016 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.S.SivaramanFor Respondent: Mrs.P.Deepika For Mr.R.ManickavelORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the judgment dated 11.11.2022, passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.401 of 2019, confirming the order dated Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 202331.10.2019, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, in C.C.No.3814 of 2016 thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”).2.The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the petitioner approached the respondent for a loan to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/- for their daughter's medical college admission. The petitioner also assured that after disposal of one of the movable property, the loan amount will be settled within short spam of time. Considering the said request, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- by way of cheque and cash payment from 27.02.2012 to 09.05.2013. The amount was paid from the joint account of the respondent and her husband and daughter. However, the petitioner failed to return the loan amount as assured by him. Later, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on several occasions by way of cheque. Still the petitioner was in due and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. Finally, the petitioner agreed to repay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards outstanding balance and the interest for the loan borrowed by the petitioner and issued cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It was presented for collection Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “insufficient fund”. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged complaint. 3.On the side of the respondent, he examined P.W.1 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. On the side of the petitioner, he examined D.W.1 & D.W.2 and marked documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found guilty of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation to the tune of cheque amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was absolutely no legally enforceable debt to issue cheque to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- by the petitioner herein. The petitioner's daughter completed her +2 examination only in the year 2013. Therefore, there was absolutely no need to borrow such a huge amount in the year 2012. Originally, the complaint was filed as against two accused. The second accused is the wife of the first accused. This Court was pleased to quash the entire proceedings as against the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023second accused in Crl.O.P.No.19199 of 2016 by an order dated 20.04.2017. The respondent's husband was jointly doing business with the petitioner. Therefore, the cheque which was now presented for collection, was issued for security purpose for the loan amount from the respondent's husband. After repaying the same, the cheque has been now misused by the respondent by presenting the same for collection. On receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner issued reply notices and the same were also marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. Hence the petitioner had rebutted the presumption arrived under Sections 118 & 139 of the NI Act. The petitioner also cross-examined the respondent to disprove the case of the respondent herein. Even then without considering the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was examined as D.W.1. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the respondent's family. In fact, the entire loan amount has been paid through cheque and money transaction. Therefore, though the petitioner issued reply notices and he himself examined as D.W.1, the petitioner failed to rebut the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023presumption and the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner. It was also rightly confirmed by the appellant and it doesn't require any interference from this Court. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7.The respondent had lent a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the remaining amount with interest, the petitioner had issued cheque for the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had taken specific plea that the cheque was issue for security purpose, he did not substantiate the same with any evidence. There was absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to issue cheque for security purpose. In fact, the petitioner admitted the borrowal and repayment of Rs.10,00,000/-. For the remaining amount with interest, the petitioner issued cheque for the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, on perusal of the reply notice issued by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner simply denied the borrowal of loan amount for the reason his daughter joined medicine only in the year 2013, and therefore, there is absolutely no need to borrow loan in the year 2012 . Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 20238.The reply notice, further revealed that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way cheque as full and final settlement for the loan availed by the petitioner. Except for the same, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was also paid through cash and no other amount was released in favour of the respondent. Therefore, for the remaining amount of Rs.21,00,000/- and interest, the petitioner issued cheque. However, the petitioner failed to prove that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security. If at all the petitioner settled the entire amount, he would take steps to return back the cheque and other documents at the time of borrowal of loan. On receipt of the reply notices, the respondent also issued rejoinder and categorical denied the allegations levelled in the reply notices. 9.That apart, the petitioner himself was examined as D.W.1. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admitted the borrowal of loan as follows :-@/////tHf;F fhnrhiy vd;DilaJ jhd;/ mjid g[fhh;jhuhpd; fzthplk; g{h;j;jp bra;jplhj epiyapy; bfhLj;njd;/ fhnrhiyapy; cs;sJ vdJ ifbahg;gk;jhd;/ g[fhh;jhuhpd; fzthplk; vt;tst[ fld; bgw;nwd; vd;why; U:/21.00.000-? Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023bgw;nwd;/ g[fhh;jhuh; vdf;F mDg;gpa rl;lg;g{h;t mwptpg;g[ kw;Wk; mjw;F ehd; bfhLj;j gjpy; jtpu v';fSf;fpilapy; ntW vGj;JK:ykhd bjhlh;g[fs; VJk; ,y;iy///////@Further the entire loan amount was paid from the joint account of the respondent and her family members. It is also proved by the respondent by producing bank statement of account as Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.18 for the year 2012 and 2013. Therefore, the respondent discharged her initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner failed to rebut the same by preponderance of probability. In fact, the petitioner had categorically admitted that an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- remains to be paid. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and the same was also rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below and the revision fails. 10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. 10.06.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderrtsPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,rtsTo 1.The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore.Crl.R.C.No.189 of 202310.06.2025Page 8 of 8