High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.646 of 2016IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.09.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.A.No.646 of 2016M/s.Ganesh ChemicalsRep by its PartnerC.N.Kumar,32, Pethampalayam Road,Perundurai, Erode District. ... Appellant/ComplainantVersusK.S.Rajpurohit, M.Proprietor,Sri Mahalaxmi Process,62-A, Mudalithottam,Opp. Bharani Garden,Sulai, Erode. ... Respondent/AccusedPRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.307 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Erode by allowing the present appeal and convict the respondent in accordance with law.For Appellant : Mr.M.Karthick for M/s.I.C.VasudevanFor Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugan1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016J U D G M E N TThe appellant as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.307 of 2011. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 05.02.2016 dismissed the complaint, discharged the accused, against which, the complainant had preferred the above appeal.2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked 14 documents. Exs.P1 to P9 are the original cheques, which were issued by the respondent on various dates for purchase of chemicals. According to the appellant, the appellant is a dealer in chemical and the respondent used to purchase chemical on credit basis and the respondent issued nine cheques to discharge his liability towards the purchase of chemicals. On the request of the appellant, the first four cheques, namely, Exs.P1 to P4 were presented for collection on 27.01.2011 and the balance five cheques on 04.02.2011. Both set of cheques were returned on 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 201627.01.2011 and 05.02.2011, respectively, for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter the appellant sent statutory notice on 13.02.2011, which was received by the respondent on 17.02.2011. But the respondent neither paid the cheque amount nor sent any reply/denial. Thereafter following the statutory procedure, complaint filed. The ground on which, the trial Court dismissed the appeal is that though the appellant had stated that it is a business transaction, he failed to file any statement of accounts, credit bills, daily register and sales register. On this point complaint dismissed. The respondent explanation is that cheques given as security but not probabilised his defence to show that this security cheques have been discharged and what was the arrangement made thereafter. In such circumstances, Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act comes into play.3.He further submitted that the complainant filed the complaint as partner of Ganesh Chemicals. The trial Court finding that the partnership deed not produced is fatal, but the respondent not denied the appellant’s status as partner. When there is no denial, the trial Court finding it as fatal 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016and dismissing the complaint is not proper. He further submitted that the bills were filed along with the complaint, by oversight failed to mark the same but later an attempt to mark was denied. Hence, prayed to allow this appeal4.The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appellant’s contention submitting that appellant's status as Partner in Ganesh Chemicals is not proved. The complaint filed in the name of Ganesh Chemicals. The appellant ought to have produced some documents to show that he was authorised on behalf of partnership firm to proceed with the complaint. He further submitted that the trial Court rightly found that the appellant’s status as Partner of Ganesh Chemicals is denied. Further the appellant not produced relevant bills such as Credit bill, sale bill, daily register and sale register. Further the appellant/PW1 in his evidence admits that he used to issue credit bills during the purchase of bills. In such circumstances, production of credit bills is necessary. The appellant/PW1 not cross examined immediately, he was cross examined later, but then too, not taken any steps to produce the bills, which was rightly referred by the Lower Court that PW1 was examined 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016on 20.03.2014 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Thereafter, he was cross examined on 01.11.2014. Nearly about 7 months after his chief examination, the appellant not taken any steps to produce bills but belatedly wanted to insert credit bills, which was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the appellant approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.26586 of 2015 and this Court dismissed the appellant’s plea by the order dated 25.01.2016. The trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2006 (3) CTC 730 and the judgment of this Court in M/s.India Steel & Alloys vs. M/s.Venkatesa Industrial Suppliers and another reported in 2015 (1) TLNJ 474 (Criminal), thoroughly analysed the evidence and rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no perversity or reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.5.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant not produced any materials to prove that he 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016is the Partner of Ganesh Chemicals. Further, when the appellant admitted that sale of chemical on credit basis, credit bills will be issued, the same not produced. The trial Court rightly found that none of the documents, viz., statement of accounts, credit bills, sale bill, daily register and sales register produced. The cheques issued during regular business transaction have been later projected as though the cheques issued for discharge of liability. But the said liability unable to be proved by the appellant. The trial Court by a well reasoned judgment, considering all these aspects, dismissed the complaint. The trial Court judgment is a well reasoned one, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.26.09.2025Index: Yes / NoNeutral citation : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking orderrsi6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.646 of 2016M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J. rsiCrl.A.No.646 of 2016 26.09.20258/8