High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.405 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.10.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCrl.A.No.405 of 2015N.S.MuthuveeranS/o.Sellandikandar ...AppellantVs.E.Dhachinamoorthy,S/o.Easwaran ...RespondentThis Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode and convict the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For Appellant : Ms.D.Sathyafor M/s.Zeenath BegumFor Respondent : Mr.John Alexanderfor Mr.E.K.KumaresanJUDGMENT This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode dated 22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 20152. The case is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for an alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/accused and the appellant/complainant are family friends and both of them are also Advocates and in view of the friendship, the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for his urgent family expenses and business development and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. The respondent/accused agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per Rs.100/- per month as and when demanded by the complainant. The accused was paying the interest to the complainant regularly and when the complainant demanded repayment of the principal on 15.10.2010, on 21.10.2010 the respondent/accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the same was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, statutory notice was issued. The respondent/accused did not make any payment, however issued a reply notice containing false information and hence, the complaint was filed. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 20153. Upon recording a sworn statement, the complaint was taken on record and summons were issued to the respondent/accused and upon appearance and furnishing of copies, the respondent/accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the appellant/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Branch Manager of Salem District, Central Co-operative Bank was examined as P.W.2 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and the circumstances on record, the respondent/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the respondent/accused examined the Assistant Manager, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank as D.W.1 and one M.Shanmugam as D.W.2 and Exhibits D1 to D6 were also marked. The Trial Court, considered the case of the parties and several circumstances, which were against the appellant/complainant including the fact that the cheque was an old cheque of the year 2004 not having any MICR code and the appellant/complainant being unable to produce any other supportive documents and the appellant/complainant being the counsel of the Sakthi Finance, where the respondent/accused borrowed the amount and when the appellant/complainant said to have been issued a notice for an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the year 2006 had chosen to advance a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as cash in the year 2010 and for all the circumstances, the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 2015Trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. As against the same, the present appeal has been filed.4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once the accused admits the signature in the cheque, the presumption is in favour of the appellant/complainant. The respondent/accused had not proved the fact that the cheque was issued only to Sakthi Finance. Even the Branch Manager of Sakthi Finance, who was examined as D.W.2 did not say so. As far as the cheque is concerned, the appellant/complainant has categorically stated that, it is the respondent/accused, who brought the cheque duly type-written and signed and handed over to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant cannot be found fault with for accepting an old cheque. The cheque issued was duly presented and it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. It is to be noted that even though it is the case of the wife of the accused, who discharged loan to Sakthi Finance, they have not taken any steps to get the cheque returned from the said Finance. Thus, it would be clear that there is a long standing friendship between the respondent/accused and 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 2015the appellant/complainant and believing the respondent/accused, the appellant/complainant had lent the amount by way of cash and when the cheque has been issued in favour of the appellant/complainant, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent/accused.6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused would submit that when such a huge sum is said to be advanced, it must be noted that there was any occasion for the respondent/accused to borrow such amount and the capacity of the appellant/complainant to arrange such huge amount. Further, even the promissory note alleged to have been executed is cleverly pleaded to have been returned to the complainant himself. The accused has let in cogent evidence to rebut the presumption and the Trial Court was right in acquitting the respondent/accused.7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In this case, the appellant/complainant admits that he was also a Councillor and that he was also an Advocate and in that capacity, he had 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 2015also issued a legal notice for one Sakthi Finance to the wife of the accused when she failed to repay the amount due to the Sakthi Finance. The appellant/complainant further triples up as a Financier when he pleads that he advanced the loan to the accused for interest at the rate of 1.5%.9. In that background, firstly, it is the pleading of the appellant/complainant that a promissory note was executed and the appellant/complainant, being an Advocate, has not even chosen to produce the copy of the said alleged pro-note. Secondly, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration that the cheque was issued from the bank to the accused in the year 2004 and by the time borrowal was made and the respondent/accused was said to have issued the cheque, new cheque formats with MICR code has come into force and it is shocking to plead that the appellant/complainant being an Advocate would accept such an old cheque format of the year 2010. Thirdly, it is further to be noted that the respondent/accused has duly cross-examined the complainant, whereunder the transactions with reference to the Sakthi Finance are admitted by the appellant/complainant. Further, the respondent/accused has also examined D.W.2 to further buttress his case 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 2015and thus, the respondent/accused has rebutted the presumption to the level of preponderance of probability. In the absence of any further proof with reference to the advance of such a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Trial Court is right in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused. 10. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 28.10.2025mpNCC: Yes / NoTo1. The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.405 of 2015D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,mpCrl.A.No.405 of 201528.10.20258/8