High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.11.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCrl.A.No.1051 of 2022M.Thilaga... AppellantVsR.Sundarrajan ... RespondentPrayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpet, dated 11.07.2022 in C.C.No.21/2011 and allow the above appeal.For Petitioner: Mr.V.SairamFor Respondents: Mr.K.Mohammed Hydher Ali for Mr.P.DineshkumarORDERThe appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu dated 11.07.2022 made in C.C.No. 21 of 2011. By the said judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a dealer in tractors and harvester machines. The accused is a customer of the complainant. The accused had already purchased a tractor with the harvester machine from the complainant. He had also placed an order for another machine in his father's name, namely Radha Nayakkar, in the previous year of filing of the complaint. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, of which a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the account of the father of the accused, namely Radha Nayakkar and the balance was paid in cash. When the complainant demanded the balance outstanding, the accused issued the subject cheque for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- dated 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 202209.07.2010. Upon being presented for collection, the cheque was returned dishonoured as “fund insufficient”. Statutory notice was issued, for which there was no payment nor any reply and hence the complaint.3. Upon recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file. Upon issuance of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and the matter was taken to trial. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and one Dharmendra, the concerned bank manager, was examined as P.W.2. The subject cheque was marked as Ex.P1. The challan for depositing the cheque for collection was marked as Ex.P2. The memo of dishonour was marked as Ex.P3. The statutory notice was marked as Ex.P4 and the acknowledgment card as Ex.P5. The statement of accounts of Mahalaxmi Agro Services, of which the complainant is the proprietor, was marked as Ex.P6.4. Upon questioning about the material evidence on record, the accused 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022denied the same as false. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and the statement of accounts of the father of the accused was also marked as Ex.D1. The Trial Court thereafter considered the case of the parties. The Trial Court held that the version of the accused, that the Rs.2,40,000/- which was transferred to the father of the accused related to the purchase of the harvester machine and that the same was also repaid by the father of the accused, is probable with reference to the balance payment made in cash. The Trial Court considered the cross-examination of the complainant and on considering the evidence let in on behalf of the accused, held that the complainant should have let in further proof regarding advancement of money as cash and accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him, against which the present appeal is filed.5. Mr.V.Sairam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would firstly submit that the finding of the Trial Court with reference to Ex.D1, that 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022is, the money transacted between the father of the accused and the complainant, has nothing to do with the instant transaction. The complaint itself reveals that there was yet another transaction with reference to the purchase of a harvester by the father of the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have taken Ex.D1 into account. As far as the subject cheque is concerned, the accused had mentioned different reasons as to how the cheque with his new signature came into the hands of the complainant. The prevaricating statements themselves would falsify the defense. It must be seen that the complainant is armed with the presumption and once the signature on the cheque is admitted and the other ingredients are duly proved, the accused has not done anything to disprove the case of the complainant.6. Further, it can be seen from the answers given by the accused in the cross-examination itself that the accused did not even attempt to examine the official from Indian Bank. It must also be seen that not even a reply was issued to the statutory notice. To top it all, pending the case, the accused also made a 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022part payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was also put to him when he was in the box. As a matter of fact, from the proceedings of the Trial Court, it can be seen that on 10.04.2015, the Trial Court recorded that part payment was already made and adjourned the case for further payment. On several occasions, the Trial Court recorded the adjournments for further payment, and absolutely no objection was made on behalf of the accused. For the first time only during defence evidence, the accused denied having paid the Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, it can be seen that the accused has not come up with any consistent version, much less any believable version, to the level of preponderance of probability and in the absence of the same, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused.7. Per contra, Mr.K,Mohamed Hydher Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, would submit that the Trial Court has rightly considered the entire issue and granted the benefit of doubt and there is nothing for this Court to interfere with the said findings in an appeal against 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022acquittal.8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.9. The case of the complainant is that the accused is the customer of the complainant and in that relationship, the complainant, by way of hand loan on account of the urgency pleaded by the accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. Of the said sum, Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the account of the father of the accused and the balance was paid in cash. The said averments are duly made. The complainant also examined himself as P.W.1. The subject cheque was also marked. The signature on the cheque is not denied. The statutory notice is also marked. The other ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are pleaded and evidence is let in and accordingly the complainant has discharged his initial onus and thus the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 20221881 also arises in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the only question is whether the accused has done enough to rebut the presumption so that the onus further shifts on the complainant to adduce further proof regarding the loan.10. As far as the accused is concerned, by cross-examining the complainant and by examining himself and marking Ex.D1, the plea is that the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is margin money for the purchase of the harvester by the father of the accused. From Ex.D1, it was pleaded on behalf of the accused that it is true that the complainant transferred Rs.2,40,000/-, the Indian Bank had given Rs.13,40,000/-, and by including the Rs.2,40,000/-, the sum of Rs.15,70,000-/- was sent to the account of the complainant. It is also pleaded that as of 05.03.2010, the entire amount payable to the complainant with reference to the purchase of the said vehicle was paid in full.11. With reference to the cash component, the following are the answers given by the complainant in the cross-examination:-8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022kPjp bjhif vjphp gzkhf vd;dplkpUe;J bgw;whh;/ kPjp bjhifia vjphp bgWk;nghJ mtUld; ahh;; ahh; ,Ue;jhh;fs; vd;W vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy/ vjphp kPjp bjhifia vd; fk;bgdpf;F te;J bgw;Wr; brd;whh;/ vg;nghJ bgw;w njjp vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy U/:6.10.000/-j;ij ve;j njjpapy; th';fpdhh; vd;whh; 09/07/2010k; njjpf;Fs; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lhh;.vd;bdd;d U:gha; nehl;Lf;fshf U/:6.10.000/-j;ij bfhLj;njd; vd;why;; "hgfk;; ,y;iy vj;jid fl;Lfs; bfhLj;njd; vd;why; "hgfk;; ,y;iy. ehd; vjphpf;F gzk; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy; jhd; vj;jid fl;Lfs; vd;bdd;d U:gha; nehl;Lfs; Fwpj;j tptuk; bjhpatpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. U/:6.10.000/- bfhLg;gjw;F vj;jid ehl;fSf;F Kd;dhy; gzk; njit vd;W vjphp vd;dplk; Twpdhh; vd;why; mJ Fwpj;J "hgfk;; ,y;iy/12. Therefore, taking the above into account, when the accused has projected that the transaction was the purchase of a vehicle and that the cheque leaf was handed over at that time, and with reference to the amount transferred in the bank account when plausible explanation is pleaded and Ex.D1 bank statement is marked and taking into account the answers given by the complainant with reference to the cash loan, if the Trial Court concluded that, to the level of preponderance of probability, the accused has rebutted the presumption and that in the absence of any further proof from the complainant regarding advancement of the loan, granted benefit of doubt to the accused, it 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022cannot be said that the findings are perverse or an implausible view.13. With reference to the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, it is true that on 10.04.2015, the Trial Court recorded that part payment was already made and further payment was to be made on or before 08.05.2015 without fail, and thereafter in two or three hearings also the matter was posted for further payment. It is not clear as to who made the representation for the payment. When the parties have gone into trial and contested the matter on merits, any attempt for settlement in between cannot conclusively prove the case of the complainant.14. Therefore, finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed.24.11.2025Neutral Citation: Yes/Nonsl10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022ToThe Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpet.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.nslCrl.A.No. 105 1 of 2022 24.11.202512/12