High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024andCrl.M.P.Nos.15247 & 15248 of 2024A.Shanthi.....Petitioner VsJ.Rajendran.....RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2023 on the file of the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai thereby confirming the conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 01.03.2023 in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velan For Respondent : Ms.D.Gnanasoundari for Mr.S.KrishnamoorthyPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.207 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024 on the file of the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai thereby confirming the conviction imposed by the trial court in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had borrowed a loan for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- on various dates and in order to repay the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque which was presented, but the same was returned for the reason “kindly contact Drawer or Drawee Bank and please present again”. Once again it was presented and the same was also returned for the very same reason. After causing show cause notice, respondent lodged a complaint which was taken cognizance by the trial court. On the side of the respondent, he had examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial court. 3. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the petitioner was Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024found guilty and sentenced to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and same was also dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence the present revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of cross examination. The specific defence of the petitioner was that he borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the respondent for which he had given cheque and pronote as security. After repayment of the entire amount of Rs.50,000/-, the cheque was misused by the respondent by presentation of the cheque for collection. In fact, he categorically admitted that the amount was filled up and the cheque was signed only by the respondent and and had presented cheque for collection. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent also admitted that the petitioner had given a pronote to the respondent. However, it was not produced before the trial court since it was executed only for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Considering the above circumstances, the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner. In support of his Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024contention, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.742 of 2018 dated 29.11.2022 in case of K.S.Sivakumar & M.Senthilkumar. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent discharged his initial burden as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However the petitioner failed to rebut the same. The petitioner never disputed the signature and issuance of cheque. Even according to the petitioner he admitted borrowal of Rs.50,000/- and denied the other borrowals. Hence, the trial and the appellate court rightly convicted and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. The specific case of the respondent was that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.01.2025. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was borrowed on 23.05.2018 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 24.05.2018. Altogether, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and he promised to repay the said amount. In order to repay the said amount, he had issued the cheque and the same was presented for collection on 11.05.2020. However, it was returned as unpaid for the reason “Kindly contact drawer or drawee Bank and please present again”. It was informed to the petitioner on specific instruction, that the cheque was once again presented for collection, however, once again it was returned for the very Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024same reason. After returning of the cheque on 19.05.2020, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that the respondent was in possession of the cheque and pronote which was given as security at the time of borrowal of Rs.50,000/-. Even after repaying the said amount, both the documents were not returned to the petitioner. On the complaint, the enquiry was conducted and the respondent agreed to return the same. It was admitted by the respondent who deposed as PW1. Even thereafter, once again the respondent presented the cheque for collection on 16.07.2020. It was once again returned for the very same reason. The specific defence of the petitioner was that he had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- and the same was duly repaid. At the time of borrowal he had given the cheque and the pronote to the respondent. 8. The respondent further admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner had executed a pronote and the same was not produced before the trial court. He also admitted that other cheques and pronotes are very much available with him. In fact the respondent only filled the amount of the cheque. He admitted that the petitioner issued only signed cheques and pronotes. Therefore, the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the petitioner admits his signature found in the cheque, he denied the issuance of cheque for any legally Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024enforceable debt. It was issued as security at the time of borrowal of loan to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Further, there is contradiction in respect of date of borrowal of alleged loan by the petitioner. The respondent deposed that on 23.01.2018, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.05.2018 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 23.05.2018. On the date of borrowal, no documents were received as security from the petitioner and no prudent person would lend such huge amount without any security documents. Further, he also deposed that the respondent did not whisper as to when the petitioner agreed to repay the said loan amount. Altogether it shows that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. When the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption, respondent ought to have proved that the loan borrowed by the petitioner and the issuance of cheque for legally enforceable debt. But the respondent failed to do so and as such the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, the Judgment dated 26.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2023 by the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Court in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai are hereby set Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024aside. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.08.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoNhsTo1. The XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.NhsCrl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024andCrl.M.P.Nos.15247 & 15248 of 202408.07.2025Page 8 of 8

Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024andCrl.M.P.Nos.15247 & 15248 of 2024A.Shanthi.....Petitioner VsJ.Rajendran.....RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 26.06.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2023 on the file of the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai thereby confirming the conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 01.03.2023 in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velan For Respondent : Ms.D.Gnanasoundari for Mr.S.KrishnamoorthyPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.207 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024 on the file of the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai thereby confirming the conviction imposed by the trial court in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had borrowed a loan for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- on various dates and in order to repay the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque which was presented, but the same was returned for the reason “kindly contact Drawer or Drawee Bank and please present again”. Once again it was presented and the same was also returned for the very same reason. After causing show cause notice, respondent lodged a complaint which was taken cognizance by the trial court. On the side of the respondent, he had examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial court. 3. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the petitioner was Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024found guilty and sentenced to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and same was also dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence the present revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of cross examination. The specific defence of the petitioner was that he borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the respondent for which he had given cheque and pronote as security. After repayment of the entire amount of Rs.50,000/-, the cheque was misused by the respondent by presentation of the cheque for collection. In fact, he categorically admitted that the amount was filled up and the cheque was signed only by the respondent and and had presented cheque for collection. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent also admitted that the petitioner had given a pronote to the respondent. However, it was not produced before the trial court since it was executed only for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Considering the above circumstances, the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner. In support of his Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024contention, he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.742 of 2018 dated 29.11.2022 in case of K.S.Sivakumar & M.Senthilkumar. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent discharged his initial burden as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. However the petitioner failed to rebut the same. The petitioner never disputed the signature and issuance of cheque. Even according to the petitioner he admitted borrowal of Rs.50,000/- and denied the other borrowals. Hence, the trial and the appellate court rightly convicted and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. The specific case of the respondent was that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.01.2025. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was borrowed on 23.05.2018 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 24.05.2018. Altogether, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and he promised to repay the said amount. In order to repay the said amount, he had issued the cheque and the same was presented for collection on 11.05.2020. However, it was returned as unpaid for the reason “Kindly contact drawer or drawee Bank and please present again”. It was informed to the petitioner on specific instruction, that the cheque was once again presented for collection, however, once again it was returned for the very Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024same reason. After returning of the cheque on 19.05.2020, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that the respondent was in possession of the cheque and pronote which was given as security at the time of borrowal of Rs.50,000/-. Even after repaying the said amount, both the documents were not returned to the petitioner. On the complaint, the enquiry was conducted and the respondent agreed to return the same. It was admitted by the respondent who deposed as PW1. Even thereafter, once again the respondent presented the cheque for collection on 16.07.2020. It was once again returned for the very same reason. The specific defence of the petitioner was that he had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- and the same was duly repaid. At the time of borrowal he had given the cheque and the pronote to the respondent. 8. The respondent further admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner had executed a pronote and the same was not produced before the trial court. He also admitted that other cheques and pronotes are very much available with him. In fact the respondent only filled the amount of the cheque. He admitted that the petitioner issued only signed cheques and pronotes. Therefore, the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the petitioner admits his signature found in the cheque, he denied the issuance of cheque for any legally Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024enforceable debt. It was issued as security at the time of borrowal of loan to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Further, there is contradiction in respect of date of borrowal of alleged loan by the petitioner. The respondent deposed that on 23.01.2018, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.05.2018 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- 23.05.2018. On the date of borrowal, no documents were received as security from the petitioner and no prudent person would lend such huge amount without any security documents. Further, he also deposed that the respondent did not whisper as to when the petitioner agreed to repay the said loan amount. Altogether it shows that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. When the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption, respondent ought to have proved that the loan borrowed by the petitioner and the issuance of cheque for legally enforceable debt. But the respondent failed to do so and as such the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, the Judgment dated 26.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2023 by the XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Court in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai are hereby set Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024aside. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.08.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoNhsTo1. The XVIII additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court No.2, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.NhsCrl.R.C.No.1858 of 2024andCrl.M.P.Nos.15247 & 15248 of 202408.07.2025Page 8 of 8