High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.11.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCrl.A.No.286 of 2022Mahalingam .. Appellant/ComplainantVs.Rajasekar .. Respondent/AccusedPrayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated 20.01.2021 made in S.T.C.No.332 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District and consequently convict the respondent / accused, in accordance with law and pass such further or other order.For the Appellant:Mr.C.C.SivakumarFor the Respondent:Mr.K.V.Sundararajan JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal is filed as against the judgment dated 20.01.2021 in C.C.No.332 of 2016 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District. By the said judgment the Trial Court acquitted the Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 respondent / accused of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant / complainant. The case of the complainant is that the accused for his urgent business needs requested the complainant for loan during October 2015 and the complaint advanced the loan for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as cash and in consideration thereof the accused issued a cheque dated 04.12.2015 for the said sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. When the same was presented, it returned dishonoured. Thereafter, the statutory notice was issued. The accused didn't pay the amount within the time limit. No reply was also issued. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The case was taken on file after recording sworn statement. Upon issue of summons and furnishing of copies and questioning the accused, he denied the imputations. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Karthik as P.W.2; exhibits P1 to P 6 were also marked. During the course of the trial, the bank statement of the accused was marked as Ex.D1. Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 Upon being questioned about the incriminating circumstances and evidence on record under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter no evidence was let in on behalf of the defense. 5. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. Firstly the Trial Court considered the various errors that were made with reference to date, etc., in the complaint. Secondly, the Trial Court took into consideration the different stands that are taken by the complainant with reference to the advancement of loan in the years 2012 and 2015. Thirdly, the Trial Court took into consideration the answers given by the complainant in the cross-examination with reference to the filling up of the cheque, etc, and found that since the Cheque was not even a MICR cheque, the version of the defense that it could have been issued in the years 2011 to 2012 was very much possible and as such gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.6. Mr.C.C.Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / complainant would submit that the dates that are erroneously mentioned in the complaint are nothing but typographical errors which are committed by the counsel. On a reading of the complaint as a whole in Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 conjunction with the statutory notice, it can be seen that there is no doubt with reference to the complainant’s case. Therefore the accused was reasonably put on notice of the complainant’s case to answer. The case of the complainant is that on 04.12.2015 a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was advanced as a loan and the accused issued the subject matter of cheque on the same day. The accused took a defence that the cheque was issued in an earlier point of time. Even if the cheque was issued in an earlier point of time, there was no occasion for the accused, who have signed the cheque on either side and this should have been taken note of by the Trial Court. If the accused choose to issue an old cheque that too the one which is used by him for his personal transactions, the complaint cannot be found fault with. Once the complainant has marked the cheque and deposed that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also arises in favour of the complainant. The accused has not done anything to rebut the presumption. The bank statement marked as Ex.D1 does not lead the accused anywhere. If the accused has used the relevant leaves at the earlier point of time and preserved the subject matter cheque leaf and handed over to the complainant, no fault can be found with the case of the complainant.Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 7. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in DK Chandel Vs. Wockhardt Limited and Another1 to content that the production of the account books and cash book are only relevant in Civil Code, but, in a case under section 138, it is only the production of the cheque that is an essential and by producing the same, the complaint has discharged his onus. 8. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent / accused would submit that in this case the complainant was not even sure of the date on which he advanced the loan. In the complaint as well as in the chief-examination, it was mentioned as 04.12.2015, whereas, in the cross-examination, he admitted that the loan was issued in the year 2012. The learned counsel would further take this Court to the various answers that are given in the cross-examination with reference to the filling up of the cheque and the prevaricating statements made by the complainant would adumbrate the falsity of the case. He would further state that there was no explanation from the complainant with reference to the two signatures of the accused. When the cheque has been filled up by three different inks, the same would only 1 (2020) 13 SCC 471Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 probabilise the case of the accused.9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant once the signature was admitted and the cheque was duly marked and the complainant has deposed as P.W.1, that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the complainant has discharged the initial onus. It is needless to mention that the errors with reference to the dates in the complaint doesn't in any manner create any doubt over the case of the complainant. Te innocuous mistakes that are committed by the counsel while drafting the complaint by way of cut and paste mistakes, etc, should not be put against the complainant in this case. Thus, I hold that the complainant has discharged his initial onus and thereafter it has to be seen whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not.11. Firstly, a reading of the statutory notice and the complaint, though it can be ascertained that the date in which the advancement of loan is 04.12.2015, Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 it was not expressly stated that the cheque was issued on the same day of borrowal and the date of the cheque alone was mentioned and the borrowed date was not mentioned. It is in this context when in the cross-examination, the complaint admits that he had advanced the loan in the year 2012 and in another place in the cross-examination when it is recorded that the loan was advanced on 04.12.2015 between 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm, the case of the complainant becomes doubtful as to whether he has advanced the money in the year 2015 or not. Secondly, even as per the complaint that on earlier occasions he did not take any documents since the accused is his friend and this time since the amount is huge, he has taken the cheque and any reasonable person would request the accused to give a cheque in his name and in his presence only. The complainant also initially states in the cross-examination as follows:-“///////////brf;fpy; bjhif kw;Wk; cs;s tptu';fis vjphpia g{h;j;jp bra;J bfhLj;jhh;/ vd; Kd;dhy; vjphp ifbaGj;J nghl;Lf;bfhLj;jhh;/ brf; vGj 5 epkplk; MdhJ/ c';fs; ngdhtpy; fhnrhiy vGjg;gl;ljh vjphp ngdhtpy; vGjg;gl;ljh vd;why; vjphp bjhif vy;yhk; g{h;j;jp bra;J vLj;Jte;jhh;/ vd; Kd;dpiyapy; ifbaGj;J nghl;lhh;/ fhnrhiy ahh; bgaUf;F Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 vGjg;gl;lJ vd;W ehd; nehpy; ghh;f;ftpy;iy/ njjpa[k; Vw;fdnt vGjp vLj;Jte;jhh;/ bgah; vy;yhk; ve;j ngdhtpy; vGjpdhh; vd;W vdf;F bjhpahJ/ vjphpjhd; bgaiu vGjpdhuh vd;W vdf;F bjhpahJ//////////////////////////////////////////////////fhnrhiyapy; cs;s ifbaGj;ij 04/12/2015 md;nw nghl;lhh;/ gpd; gf;fk; fhnrhiyapy; cs;s ifbaGj;ij vg;nghJ nghl;lhh; vd;why; mij vjphpna nghl;L vLj;Jte;jhh; Kd; gf;fk; fUg;g[ikapy; cs;s ifbaGj;J kl;Lk; vd; Kd;dpiyapy; nghl;lhh;/ gpd; gf;fk; cs;s vjphpapd; ifbaGj;J g[S ,';fpy; cs;sJ/ me;j ifbaGj;J nghl;lij ehd; ghh;f;ftpy;iy/ gpd; gf;fk; Vd; ifbaGj;J nghl;L bfhLj;jPh;;; vd;W ehd; nfl;ftpy;iy//////////////////” 11. Thus it can be seen that as in the cross-examination proceeded, the answers kept on changing. The further answers in the cross-examination with Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 reference to the hand writing and signature have to be taken into account. Under the said circumstances, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption by cross-examining the complainant coupled with the fact that proving the cheque was an old cheque by marking Ex.D1, the said finding cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an impossible view. Once the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act, is rebutted in this case the complainant has not produced any further proof with reference to the advancement of loan. Further, the accused is able to create a doubt as the very transaction itself. Under the said circumstances, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 24.11.2025Neutral Citation: NoJerTo1. The Judicial MagistrateUthangarai, Krishnagiri District.2.The Section OfficerCriminal SectionHigh Court of Madras.3.The Section OfficerVR SectionPage 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 High Court of Madras.D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.JerCrl.A.No.286 of 2022 Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.286 of 2022 24.11.2025Page 11 of 11