High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.806 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.07.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.806 of 2025A.Violet Mary ... AppellantVsR.Elumalai ... RespondentPrayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed in C.C.No.4982 of 2021 dated 25.07.2024 on the file of 27th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.For Appellant:Mr.N.Beulah John SelvarajJUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in C.C.No.4982 of 2021 on the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court for Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Saidapet, Chennai-15 thereby acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025 2. The appellant filed a complaint as against the respondent for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as loan and he assured that he would repay the said amount within six months. After six months when the appellant demanded for repayment of the said amount, the respondent neglected to repay the said amount inspite of the repeated demands. However during the month of July 2021, the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was presented for collection but it was returned dishonored for the reason “Drawers signature differs”. After issuance of statutory notice, the appellant filed a complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. On the side of the appellant he had examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On the side of the respondent, no one were examined and no documents were marked before the trial court. On perusal of the records, the trial court found not guilty for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent, after knowing that the signature in the cheque differs from his original signature, issued a cheque with different signature. Therefore, the cheque was returned dishonored for the reason “Drawer signature differs”. Therefore, the appellant discharged his initial burden that the presumption that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. Even then the trial court had acquitted the respondent without any reasons. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in case of Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs. Kurlon Ltd. And Ors in Criminal Petition Nos.1579 to 1585 of 2005 in which, the High Court of Karnataka held that the accused can show that the alterations in dates or signatures are made not because of insufficient or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amounts of cheques at the time of presentation of cheques for encashment at the drawer’s bank and that the cheques are returned for a valid cause, then the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not be made out. In this regard, the respondent failed to produce any statement of records to show that on the date of presentation of cheque there was enough amount to honor the cheque. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025Instruments Act is clearly made out as against the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Goa in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006 in case of P.V.Constructions Vs. K.J.Augusty reported in Manu/MH/1412/2006 held that when the accused fails to prove that there was no debt or liability, then he could not be said to have discharged the burden cast upon him. When the accused having not discharged the burden of proving that the cheque was not issued for a debt or liability, the conviction as awarded by the trial court shall be upheld. 5. A perusal of record reveals that the specific allegation levelled as against the respondent was that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as a hand loan for his urgent family needs. The respondent also assured that he will repay the said amount within a period of six months. Even after six months on repeated requests, the respondent did not repay the same. However, in the month of July 2021, the respondent issued a cheque. It was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonored for the reasons 'drawer signature differs'. The appellant was examined as P.W.1. A perusal of chief examination, also reveal that after Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025borrowing the loan in the month of July 2019, the respondent issued a cheque in the month of 2021. However, the appellant in her cross examination categorically deposed that on the date of borrowal, the respondent issued a signed blank cheque, except the cheque no other documents were executed as security for the loan borrowed by the respondent. That apart, the appellant is working in tiffin shop and is drawing daily wages. She is acquainted with the respondent through her brother. The respondent and the appellant's brother are working at M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited. While being so, the respondent used to borrow small amounts from the appellant's brother for which, the respondent issued a cheque as security. Even after re-payment of the entire amount which was borrowed from the appellant's brother, the said cheque was misused by the appellant.6. Admittedly, the cheque was issued only with signature. Other details such as name of the drawee and the amount were filled up by the appellant herein. If at all the cheque was issued for the loan borrowed by the respondent, it would have definitely been filled up by the respondent and issued in favour of the appellant herein. The relevant portion of the Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025cross examination of P.W.1 as follows. @ehd; ogd; filapy; ntiy bra;J tUfpnwd;/ 3 tUl';fshf ntiy bra;J tUfpnwd;/ vdf;F ehbshd;Wf;F U:/400 tPjk; rk;gsk; vdf;F jpUkzkhftpy;iy/ M$u; vjpup Vgkiy vdJ mz;zDld; fk;bgdpapy; ntiy bra;fpwhu;. Me;j tifapy; vdf;Fk; bjupa[k;/ vdJ mz;zd; ,';fu; rhy; rhykd;/ vdJ mz;zd; vz;Qqupy; cs;s mrnhf; iyyhz;l; fk;bkdpapy; ntiy bra;J te;jhu;/ vdf;F vdJ mz;zd; cld; gzpg[upa[k; egu;fSf;F vdJ mz;zd;K:ykhf fld; bfhLf;Fk; tHf;fk; cs;shjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ vdJ mz;zd; rhykDf;F mtUld; ntiy bra;a[k; egu;fSf;F fld; bfhLj;J th';Fk; gHf;fk; cs;sjh vd;why; if khw;whf bfhLj;J th';Fthu;/ vjpup vd;dplk; vg;nghJ gzk; nfhl;lhu; vd;why; 2019 Mk; Mz;L Mf!;l; 15y; vdJ tPl;oy; te;J gzk; nfl;lhu; U:/4.00.000/- nfl;lhu;/ ehd; mtu; nfl;lt[ld; gzk; bfhLj;njd;/ bjhifia buhf;fkhf xnu rkaj;jpy; jhd; bfhLj;njd;/ vjpup vdf;F bghWg;gpw;fhf ntW ve;j MtzKk; Vw;gLj;jp jutpy;iy fhnrhiy kl;Lk; jhd; bfhLj;jhu;/ gzk; tH';fpanghnj fhnrhiyia vd;dplk; bfhLj;J tpl;lhu;/ gzj;ij MW khjj;jpy; jpUg;gp jUtjhf brhd;dhu;/ vjpup vd;dplk; mtu; ifbaGj;jpl;l btw;W fhnrhiyia kl;Lk; jhd; bfhLj;jhu;/ vd;dplk; mtu; fhnrhiy tH';fpa nghJ mjpy; ifbaGj;J kl;Lk; jhd; ,Ue;jJ/ kw;w tptu';fs; gpd;du; g{u;j;jp bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ehd; vjpupf;F tl;of;F jhd; gzk; bfhLj;njd;/ khj tl;o 2 igrh tPjk; ngrg;gl;lJ/ vjpup vd;dplk; th';fpa gzj;jpw;F ,Jtiu tl;o bjhifia vd;dplnkh vdJ mz;zdplnkh bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ vjpupaplk; gzj;ij jpUg;gp jUkhW ehd; nfl;nldh vd;why; ehd; nfl;nld; vdJ mz;zd; K:ykhft[k; ehd; nfl;nld; Mdhy; mtu; jpUg;gp jutpy;iy/ M$u; vjpup Vgkiy vdJ mz;zd; rhykd; ,lk; jhd; U:/1.00.000/- fld; th';fpapUe;jhu; Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025vd;Wk; me;j bjhifia th';Fk; nghJ g{u;j;jp bra;ag;glhj ifbaGj;jplhj btw;Wf; fhnrhiyia jhd; bghWg;gpw;fhf vdJ mz;zdplk; bfhLj;jpUe;jhu; vd;Wk; nkw;go bjhifia vjpup vdJ mz;zdplk; jpUg;gp brYj;jptpl;lhu; vd;Wk; Mdhy; eh';fs; vjpup mspj;j fhnrhiyia jtwhf gad;gLj;jp ,t;tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nshk; vd;why; rupay;y/ vdJ mz;zd; rhykd; 2023 ork;gu; khjj;jpy; ,we;J tpl;lhu;/ vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; Khy; tprhuiz thf;FK:yj;jpy; cs;s ifbaGj;J vd;DilaJ jhd;/ vdf;F M';fpyj;jpYk; ifbaGj;jpLk; tHf;fk; cs;sJ/ ehd; g[fhupy; xU tpjkhft[k; fhl;rp tprhuizpa;d nghJ ntW tpjkhft[k; ifbaGj;J nghl;Ls;nsd; vd;Wk; g[fhupy; cs;s r';fjpfs; Kgtptukhf vdf;F bjupahJ vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rupay;y/ U:/4.00.000/- bkhj;jkhf xnu jtizapy; buhf;fkhf bfhLf;f rl;lgo vdf;F mWfijapy;iy vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rupay;y/ ehd; vdJ mz;zid ek;gp jhd; gzk; bfhLj;njd;/ M$u; vjpupia jtpu ntW egu;fSf;F ehd; gzk; bfhLj;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ tl;o bjhHpy; bra;a ntz;Lk; vdpy; mjw;Fupa muR mDkjp bgw;wpUf;f ntz;Lk; vd;why; mJ gw;wp vdf;F bjupahJ/ fhnrhiyapy; cs;s tptu';fis ehd; jhd; g{u;j;jp bra;J t';fpapy; brYj;jpndd;/ fhnrhiyapy; cs;s njjp bjhif kw;Wk; bgau; cs;s tptu';fis ehdhf g{u;j;jp bra;J bfhz;nldh vd;why; Mkhk;/ cz;ikapy; vdf;F vjpup fhnrhiy tH';fpapUe;jhy; Kiwahf g{u;j;jp bra;J vdf;F tH';fpapUg;ghu; vd;Wk; vdJ mz;zd; rhykdplk; bghWg;gpw;fhf xg;gilj;j btw;Wf; bfhnrhiyia gad;gLj;jp bgha; tHf;if jhf;f bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rupay;y/ vdJ mg;gh vdf;F vdJ j';iff;Fk; jyh U:/2.00.000/- gzk; bfhLj;jpUe;jhu;/ eh';fs; mij t';fpapy; blghrpl; nghl;L itj;jpUe;njhk; mij vLj;J jhd; eh';fs; gzj;ij bfhLj;njhk;/ ehd; blghrpl; itj;jpUe;jija[k; mij vLj;J vjpupf;F Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025bfhLj;jija[k; g[fhupy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ vdf;F U:/4.00.000/- fld; bfhLf;Fk; mstpw;F vt;tpj tUtha[k; ,y;iy vd;Wk; vdJ mg;gh tH';fpa gzj;ij blghrpl; bra;J mij vLj;J vjpupf;F gzk; tH';fpndd; vd;W tHf;fpw;fhf bgha; brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rupay;y/ cz;ikapy; tHf;F fhnrhiyapy; vjpup ifbaGj;jpl;L tH';ftpy;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; jhd; mtuJ ifbaGj;J khWgl;oUg;gjhf fhnrhiy jpUg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; vdJ mz;zdplk; bfhLj;jpUe;j fhnrhiyia jtwhf gad;gLj;jp ,t;tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rupay;y/ vjpup vdf;F vt;tpj bjhifa[k; jpUg;gp brYj;j flik gl;ltu; my;y vd;Wk; mtu; vdJ vdJ mz;zdplk; bfhLj;jpUe;j fhnrhiyia jtwhf gad;gLj;jp ,t;tHf;if jhf;fu; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; rupay;y/@ 7. Thus the appellant had absolutely no source of income to lend such a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- that too as a hand loan without any security. In fact, the appellant also failed to state the date of alleged borrowal in the complaint. In her chief examination, she categorically stated that in the month of July 2019, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. After repeated requests, the respondent issued a cheque in the month of July 2021 for the loan borrowed by him. But she deposed in her cross examination that, on the date of borrowal, the respondent issued a cheque for the sum which was borrowed by him. Therefore, the appellant had discharged her initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent categorically rebutted Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025the same under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the trial court rightly acquitted the respondent and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 8. Though this Court repeatedly said that the appellant had discharged her initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned counsel for the appellant was repeatedly arguing the very same point and also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in case of Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs. Kurlon Ltd. And Ors in Criminal Petition Nos.1579 to 1585 of 2005 reported in Manu/Ka/0512/2005. Further, he almost wasted the precious time of this Court upto more than twenty minutes. In fact, this Court also strictly warned that cost will be imposed for wasting the time of this Court, however, the learned counsel for the appellant continuously argued even without hearing the Court's view. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellant to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 202507.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderNhsTo1.The learned 27th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. The Member Secretary,Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority,Chennai.Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.806 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.NhsCrl.A.No.806 of 202507.07.2025Page No.12 of 12