✦ High Court of India · 14 Aug 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 14 Aug 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

14 Aug 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,680 words

Crl.A.No.400 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.400 of 2025D.Jansi Rosemary ... AppellantVs1. M/s VRV Engineers Private Ltd, Represented By Its Managing Director R.S.Bindu No.4/3, 1st Main Road, Swaminathan Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai - 600 041.2. R.S.Bindu3. V.A.Ravishankar ... RespondentsPrayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the Acquittal Judgment passed in C.C.No.1131 of 2020, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and allow the Appeal. For Appellant: Mr.S.Udhaya KumarFor Respondents : Mr.L.Rajasekar JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment passed in C.C.No.1131 of 2020, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, thereby acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 20252. The appellant lodged complaint as against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the respondents were engaged in the business of dealing in Blue Star air-conditioners as well as installation services. The appellant is also engaged in the same business. In order to develop their business, the respondents borrowed loan on various occasions and in order to repay the said loans, the respondents issued a cheque. The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. After causing statutory notice, the appellant lodged a complaint. 3. In order to prove the complaint, the appellant had examined PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to 13. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and marked Exs.D1 and 2. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted the appellant, thereby dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court, only on the basis Exs.D1 and 2 acquitted the respondents. Ex.D1 is the Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025complaint which was allegedly lodged by the respondents on 04.11.2019, whereas Ex.D2 is the receipt allegedly issued by the appellant dated 07.10.2019. During the cross examination of PW.1, both the documents were marked. Even according to the respondents, the receipt was issued in the Police Station, pursuant to the complaint dated 04.11.2019. When the complaint itself was dated 04.11.2019, there was no possibility of issuing a receipt on 07.10.2019. Therefore, the receipt was forged and fabricated for the purpose to defeating the case of the appellant. He further submitted that the receipt was issued only by the complainant, whereas, the complaint was lodged as against her husband also. Even assuming that the said receipt was issued by the appellant, it was issued in the Police Station and therefore, it cannot be taken into account for any purpose. The receipt was obtained from the appellant under threat and coercion in the Police Station. The receipt did not contain any revenue stamp and as such, it cannot be construed as a valid receipt.5. As per Ex.D2, 14 blank cheques and un-filled stamp papers were to be returned along with the original receipt. However, the respondents did not take any steps to return the original receipt, blank cheques or un-filled stamp papers. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.D2 is a forged and fabricated document. Further, in Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025Ex.D2, the address of the respondents was mentioned as a rental premises, whereas, the appellant came to the said address only on 01.12.2019 by the lease deed dated 01.12.2019. Therefore, Ex.D2 is a forged document. He further submitted that the respondents did not deny the signature found on the cheque or the issuance of the same. When the appellant had discharged the initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents for the said offence. The respondents failed to rebut the presumption and as such, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the respondents for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. A perusal of records revealed that on receipt of the statutory notice, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondents issued reply notice which was marked as Ex.P12. It revealed as follows:-“ 5. My client states that he is an Air Conditioner mechanic and for the business development he had availed loan from your client Mr.John Dixon Tolstoy during 28.01.2014 to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025lakhs only) on regular intervals for interest charged by your client @ 4% per month. My clients state that they have settled the entire principal and heavy interest amount to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five lakhs only) by way of bank transactions and cash more and above the due, when my clients asked your clients to return back the blank cheques, blank promissory notes and blank papers given by them during January 2014, your clients have given evasive replies stating that those documents are misplaced and promised my clients that they will return them back as soon they trace them. My clients state that till date none of the documents were returned back and my clients were shocked to receive the above mentioned notices after notices from your clients who had cunningly filled the cheques and documents to their wishes and claiming huge amount inspite my clients settling all the amount due to your clients.6. My clients state that they have already lodged complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, for the unruly behaviour and the threat caused by your clients and their hooligans whose names have been mentioned in the complaint, and the same is pending for investigation. Your clients have suppressed many facts to you and had given false information to initiate with unwarranted legal proceedings.”8. Therefore, by way of reply notice, the respondents categorically rebutted the presumption with setting up a probable defence. That apart, the respondents called upon the appellant to return all 17 blank cheques, 5 blank promissory notes and 10 blank papers which were allegedly in the custody of the appellant. It was duly received by the appellant. However, the appellant did not even issue any rejoinder to the reply. When the respondents raised a valid defence that they had repaid the entire loan amount and called upon the Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025appellant to return the cheques and other documents which were given as security at the time of borrowal, the appellant ought to have sent a rejoinder denying the said allegations. Without denying the same, filed a complaint.9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Ex.D2 was a forged document and it was not at all issued by the appellant. A perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 revealed that she admitted the signature found in Ex.D2 and also categorically admitted the issuance of the said receipt.10. The relevant portion of deposition of PW.1 are as follows:- 3/ ehd; $dtup khjk; 2014y; vjpupf;F “U:/10 yl;rk; fld; bfhLj;njd;/ Mf!;L 2015y; mtUf;F U:/9.02.000/- yl;rk; fld; vjpupf;F fhnrhiyahFk;/ ,t;tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s Mtz';fspd; tptuk; vdf;F bjupa[k;/ fld; bfhLf;Fk; nghJ vd;d Mtz';fs; vGjp th';fpndd; vd;why; lhf;Fbkd;L ngg;gu; vGjp th';fpndd;. g[nuh nehl;L vGjp th';fpndd;/ 2014y; lhf;Fbkd;L ngg;gUk; 2015y; g[nuh nehl;Lk; th';fpndd;///////////////10/ vd; Kd;dhy; fhl;lg;gLk; Mtzj;jpy; fz;Ls;s ifbaGj;J vd;DilaJ jhd;/ nkw;go Mtzk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; itj;J ehd; vGjp ifbaGj;J nghl;LbfhLj;njd;/ mij fhty; epiyaj;jpdu; jhd; ilg; bra;J bfhLj;jhu;fs; ehd; goj;J ghu;j;j ifbaGj;j nghl;nld;/ (07/10/2019 njjpapl;l urPJ Mtzk; v/rh/M/2 Mf FwpaPL bra;ag;gLfpwJ)/ rhl;rp Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025kPz;Lk; xUKiw Mtzj;ij ghu;f;fntz;Lk; vd;W nfhWfpwhu;/ Mtzk; rhl;rpaplk; fhl;lg;gLfpwJ/ rhl;rp kPz;Lk; mjpy; epug;gpa thrf';fs; jd;dplk; th';fpa thrf';fs; my;y vd;W TWfpwhu;/ g[fhu;jhuu; jug;g[ fw;wwpe;j tHf;fwp"u; nkw;go Mtzk; g[ifg;gl efy; vd;Wk;/ mij Vw;f;f ,ayhJ vd;Wk; Ml;nrgid bjuptpf;fpwhu;/ Mtzk; Vw;g[ilik Fwpj;j Ml;nrgida[ld; FwpaPL bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ Ml;nrgid Fwpj;J tHf;F Kotpy; jPu;khdpf;fg;gLk;/11/ eh';fs; 2014y; U:/35 yl;rk; gzk; bfhLj;njhk; vd;Wk; mjw;F tl;oa[k; mrYkhf nru;j;J U:/65 yl;rj;jpw;F nky; jpUg;gp th';fpbfhz;nlhk; vd;Wk;. g[/r/M/1. 2 Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; fhnrhiyfs; midj;Jnk ve;j tptuKk; g{u;j;jp bra;ag;glhky; btw;W Mtz';fspy; ifbaGj;Jfis kl;Lnk bgw;Ws;sPu;fs; vd;why; rupay;y/ vjpup bfhLj;j gjpy; mwptpg;g[f;F kWg;g[ mwptpg;g[ vJt[k; eh';fs; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/”11. Therefore, Ex.D2 was signed by the appellant and issued by her. Though Ex.D1 was lodged on 04.11.2019, as per Ex.D2, the appellant undertakes to return the signed blank cheques, signed blank papers and other documents. In order to prove that Ex.D2 was a forged one, the appellant did not take any steps to send Ex.D2 for handwriting expert opinion. Even assuming that the said receipt is a forged document, the respondents categorically rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, since it is needless to say that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque. Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025There is no dispute over the ratio. 12. In the case on hand, the respondents had rightly proved their onus that the cheque was not issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability. By way of reply notice and also elaborated cross examination, the respondent rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probabilities. Further, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act requires only probable defence and standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.13. Therefore, the respondents had categorically rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed in C.C.No.1131 of 2020, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 202514. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.14.08.2025(½)Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.400 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnToThe III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.Crl.A.No.400 of 202514.08.2025Page 10 of 10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments