High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.11.2025CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCrl.A.No.1098 of 2022M/s.Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Co., (P)Limited,Represented by its Authorised Person,Harikrishnan.. AppellantVersusD.Sukumar.. RespondentPrayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and judgment acquitting the respondent/accused in C.C.No.298 of 2016, dated 28th March, 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level – II, Coimbatore, and set aside the same.For Appellant: Mr.P.Rakesh Kumar for Mr.L.RajasekarFor Respondent: No appearance1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore, dated 28.03.2017 made in C.C.No.298 of 2016. By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the appellant/complainant is that it is a private limited Company engaged in the business of conducting chit transactions and businesses incidental thereto. The respondent/accused is a subscriber in one of the chits in Group No.J2G vide ticket No.0934/JMM/08 and the total chit value was Rs.3,00,000/-. The chit was spread over for a period of 20 months and the monthly subscription was Rs.15,000/-. The respondent/accused was declared as the successful bidder and was paid the entire chit amount. However, he committed default in paying the monthly subscriptions and he owed a total sum of Rs.1,86,752/- which included the monthly 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022subscriptions and the interest thereon. Accordingly, the respondent/accused issued a cheque on 06.02.2013 in discharge of the said liability. Upon presenting the same, the same returned dishonoured and thereafter, the statutory notice was issued since there is no payment and the respondent/accused had only issued a reply notice containing false particulars. After issuing the rejoinder notice, the complaint was filed. 3. Upon recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file and summons were issued to the respondent/accused. Upon furnishing of copies and questioning, the respondent/accused denied the imputations and stood trial. On behalf of the the appellant/complainant Company, one Harikrishnan was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 were marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record, the respondent/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the respondent/accused examined himself as D.W.1 and the Ex.D-1, chit passbook was marked on behalf of the respondent/accused. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. The Trial Court took into consideration that the appellant/complainant Company did not mark any statement of accounts to prove the balance 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022outstanding. The Trial Court further held that the amount, as claimed by the appellant/complainant Company, is not reflected as such in the chit passbook, Ex.D-1, which is admittedly issued by the appellant/complainant Company. In view thereof, the Trial Court believed the version of the respondent/accused that he only issued the cheque as a security and the same is being filled up and used by the appellant/complainant, as probable and held that since there is a doubt as to the liability, benefit of doubt should be given to the respondent/accused.4. Mr.P.Rakesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that even as per Ex.D-1, it can be seen from the last page that only a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- is entered as paid. Even though, the learned Counsel would contend that it can be seen that every page of the passbook has been subsequently verified by the officials of the appellant/complainant Company and the exact details are finally entered along with the initials of the official. The last page is yet to be verified. Even then, as per the version of the respondent/accused, Rs.2,09,000/- was only paid and as per the version of the Company also, the principal amount due is Rs.91,400/- and when the subsequent interest 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022is calculated, it comes exactly for the amount for which the cheque was issued. Thus, even without producing the statement of accounts, the appellant/complainant has demonstrated that the liability is due. When the signature in the cheque is not disputed and when the ingredients of the offence are proved, the Trial Court ought to have held that the appellant/complainant is armed with the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and ought to have convicted the respondent/accused.5. It must be seen that the respondent/accused, even though issued a reply notice that he has settled the amount in the year 2009 itself, has not done anything for the past four years to reclaim the cheque. On top of it, on a perusal of the Ex.D-1, it can be seen that there is an entry of payment of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2012, which is also admitted by D.W.1 in the cross-examination. Therefore, the entire case of the appellant/complainant is probable and the respondent/accused has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption. The offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022Counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.7. There is no dispute that the respondent/accused was a subscriber in a chit. Upon perusing the Ex.D-1 and notice thereof, nothing could be made out. Though entries were made in several rows and columns, it is stated that no prescribed format is followed and this Court is unable to decipher anything from the same. Even in the last page, there is a note that as on 07.06.2018, the balance amount is Rs.51,000/- and subsequently, payments have been received. According to the respondent/accused, he has discharged the entire liability and for that also, there is no endorsement in the book. The last column in the page No.10 is sought to be explained as the total amount paid and if the same is to be cross checked with the other column, there is as an endorsement as to how much is the amount that the respondent/accused is due and liable to pay in respect of every subscription and how much he is paying. There is no such entry in the said passbook. Therefore, nothing can be made out from the passbook. However, by producing the same, when the respondent/accused claims that the entire liability is discharged and cross-examined the P.W.1, even at that stage, no statement of accounts were 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022forthcoming from the side of the appellant/complainant Company. When the respondent/accused has duly rebutted the case of the appellant/complainant by marking Ex.D-1 and by probabilising the defence, it was for the appellant/complainant to have let in further evidence in support of the claim that there was a legally enforceable liability of the amount of the cheque that is for a sum of Rs.1,86,762/-. In the absence of the same, findings of the Trial Court, giving benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused, cannot be said to be perverse findings or an impossible.8. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 18.11.2025Neutral Citation: nogrsToThe Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level – II, Coimbatore.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grsCrl.A.No.1098 of 202218.11.20258/8