Madras High Court · 2025

CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 20222.The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court. 4.Admittedly, the complainant is the manufacturer of the paper tubes and the accused is doing paper cutting business and there existed business relationship between them. 5. The case of the complainant is that on 01.03.2011, the accused borrowed a loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant and executed a promissory note as a security. On repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.700289 drawn on Axis Bank, Sivakasi Branch for Rs.4 lakhs, dated 01.11.2012 towards discharge the part of the loan amount due by him. The complainant presented the cheque through her bankers Union Bank of India, Thiruthangal Branch, but the same was returned as funds insufficient vide bankers memo, dated 06.11.2012. The complainant 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022sent a legal notice, dated 03.12.2012 to the accused demanding him to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The accused, having received the notice on 06.12.2012, neither sent any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint. 6.The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case, took the case on file in C.C.No.51 of 2013 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of the records were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., on free of cost. When the accused was questioned about the offence alleged against him, he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty. 7. During trial, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and Thiru.Marimuthu, Assistant Bank Manager of Axis Bank as P.W.2 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 20228. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 21.08.2018, holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the present appeal. 9. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.51 of 2013, dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, is liable to be set aside ? is the point for consideration.10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer Section 118 (a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deal with the statutory presumption. “118. ... (a) of consideration ; that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration ;4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022139.Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”11. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused having business transaction with the complainant, borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.03.2011 and executed a promissory notice as a security for the loan transaction; that when the complainant demanded the loan amount, the accused issued a cheque, dated 01.11.2012 drawn on Axis Bank, Sivakasi for Rs.4,00,000/- under Ex.P.1; that the complainant presented the cheque for collection through her Bank Union Bank of India, Thiruthangal Branch, but the same was returned dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused through bankers memo, dated 06.11.2012 under Ex.P.2; that the complainant sent a legal notice, dated 03.12.2012 under Ex.P.3 directing the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque; that the accused received the legal notice on 06.12.2012 vide acknowledgement card under Ex.P.4 and that since the accused has not complied with the notice demand, he was forced to file the above complaint. 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202212. The defence of the accused, as evident from his evidence as D.W.1, is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and issued two blank cheques and one promissory note; that the accused did not receive any other loan amount from the complainant, except the loan of Rs.80,000/-; that the complainant had taken away the machinery belonging to the accused as loan amount of R.80,000/- was not paid by the accused and hence, the accused was forced to lodge a complaint before the Sivakasi Town Police Station; that an enquiry was conducted by the police on 09.05.2013 and at that time, the complainant gave a written statement admitting that the accused owed her only Rs.80,000/- and since the accused having not repaid the amount, she had taken the machinery of the accused; that the complainant sought an apology and admitted the issuance of two cheques; that she had already filed a private complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of one cheque and that she is ready to return that cheque on payment of the loan amount of Rs.80,000/- and that therefore, the complainant herself had indirectly admitted that there was no advancement of loan of Rs.6 lakhs by her to the accused and the issuance of cheque for Rs.4 lakhs under Ex.P.1. 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202213. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the accused having received the statutory notice under Ex.P.3, admittedly has not sent any reply notice. The accused in his evidence before the trial Court would admit that Ex.P1 cheque was belonging to him and also the signature found in Ex.P.1 cheque. But according to the accused, two blank signed cheques were issued to the complainant at the time of taking loan of Rs.80,000/-. 14. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant as P.W.1 has given evidence reiterating the complaint contentions and deposed about the liability of the accused, issuance of the cheque therefor, dishonor of cheque, issuance of statutory notice and the failure of the accused to pay the amount within stipulated time. 15. On considering the evidence of P.W.1 and also the admission of the accused with respect to Ex.P.1 cheque and the signature found therein, this Court has no other option, but to draw a presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, the presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022Instruments Act are always rebuttable in nature. It is settled law that the accused in order to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not required to adduce any evidence and he can very well prove his probable defence through evidence adduced by the complainant and that the standard of proof required is of preponderance of probabilities.17. Now the only point to be decided is as to whether the accused has rebutted the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. The main defence of the accused is that he borrowed only Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and since the said amount was not paid, the complainant had taken away the accused's machinery and hence, the accused was constrained to lodge a police complaint. 18. According to the defence, the complainant as well as the accused appeared before the police for the enquiry and both of them gave statements, wherein the complainant had admitted the lending of Rs.80,000/- and the receipt of two cheques. It is the further case of the accused that thereafter, the accused repaid Rs.80,000/- to the complainant for which, she issued a receipt. The accused produced the copy of the statement allegedly given by 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022the complainant before the Sivakasi Town Police, obtained through the Right to Information Act and exhibited through him as Ex.D.2.19. The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the said statement, which was allegedly given before the police during a petition enquiry, is not a legally admissible statement and the trial Court erred in marking the said statement, and therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon for drawing any inferences.20. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the complainant herself had admitted the statement given before the police and also the signature found therein. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, during the cross examination of P.W.1, the said statement/Ex.D.2 was not at all shown to the complainant and nothing was asked about the same. No doubt, the complainant has admitted that since he had taken the machineries of the accused, a police complaint was lodged by the accused. The complainant, while cross examining the accused D.W.1, has specifically denied the participation of the complainant in the police enquiry and giving any statement before the said Police and subscribing signatures therein. 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202221.It is pertinent to note that the police cannot conduct a petition enquiry, if a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, as registration of an FIR is mandatory in such cases. 22. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Uttarpradesh reported in (2008) 7 SCC 164, held that a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to determine whether the complaint discloses any cognizable offence, especially in matrimonial cases, commercial cases or medical negligence. The term “petition enquiry” lacks statutory recognition and should be avoided. 23.In the case on hand, admittedly, on the basis of the complaint given by the accused, no FIR came to be registered, but only an enquiry was conducted. Moreover, the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during any form of enquiry or investigation including a petition enquiry should not be signed by the person making them, as per Section 162 of Cr.P.C.,( 180 of B.N.S.S.,) to protect the witness/accused from coercion and prevent misuse by the police. 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202224. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, the statement under Ex.D.2, which was allegedly given before the police is not admissible. But while examining the maker of the statement before the Court of law, the said statement can be used to contradict the witness testimony. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, the copies of documents received through RTI request by themselves, do not prove genuineness of the documents in Court. 25. In our case, as already pointed out, the complainant specifically disputed the alleged statement given before the Police and the signature found therein. Despite the specific denial, the accused did not take any steps to summon the police officer, who conducted the enquiry and recorded the statements allegedly from the complainant. 26. Viewing from any angle, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant Ex.D.2 statement which is legally inadmissible cannot be looked into. 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202227. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, the accused in his evidence would admit that he owed Rs.80,000/-, from the business transaction, he had with the complainant; that he gave the police complaint only after the receipt of summons in the above cheque dishonor case from the Magistrate Court and that he did not disclose about the cheque dishonor case in his police complaint and the relevant evidence is extracted hereunder for better appreciation :'vd;Dila njhopy; epkpj;jk; tuTnryT fzf;Ffs; itj;Js;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. vdf;Fk;> Gfhh;jhuUf;Fk; ,ilNa ele;j tpahghu njhlh;G &.80>000- fld; nfhLf;fNtz;baJ ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. vd;Dila tuTnryT fzf;FfspYk; me;j tptuk; Jyq;Fk; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ehd; nrYj;j Ntz;ba &.80 Mapuj;ij rptfhrp efh; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; itj;J nrYj;jptpl;Nld;. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ehd; jhd; Gfhh; nfhLj;jpUe;Njd;. Gfhh;jhuh; jhd;> ehd; nrYj;jpa gzj;ij ngw;Wf;nfhz;lhh;. ehd; gzk; nfhLj;j Njjp 09.05.2013-y; kD nfhLj;Njd;. 11.05.2013-y; gzk; nfhLj;J Kbf;fg;gl;lJ. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; gzk; ngw;Wf;nfhz;ljw;F ru];tjpaplk; vOjp kD urPJ nfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ru];tjpaplk; ifnaOj;Jg; ngw;W xU urPJ nfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. gzk; ngw;Wf;nfhz;ljw;fhd Gfhh;jhuh; vOjpf;nfhLj;j 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022urPJ vd;dplk; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;;. me;j urPij ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. tof;fwpQhplk; nfhLj;Js;Nsd;....... ,e;j tof;F fhNrhiyia Gfhh;jhuUf;F nfhLj;j tptuk; ehd; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; nfhLj;j Gfhhpy; nrhy;yp cs;Nsdh vd;why; nrhy;yp cs;Nsd;. fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F ehd; Gfhh; nfhLg;gjw;F Kd;Ng vdf;F> ,e;j tof;fpw;fhd miog;ghiz te;Jtpl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.D.W.1 during subsequent cross examination made on 16.03.2018 would admit “ ehd; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; nfhLj;j GfhhpNyh> thf;F%yj;jpNyh> jhth fhNrhiy tof;if gw;wp nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. mjw;F fhuzk; tof;F fhNrhiy njhiff;Fk;> mjw;F gpd;G ehd; ngw;w &.80 Mapuj;jpw;Fk; rk;ke;jkpy;iy vd;gjhy; jhd; nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. ,e;j tptuk; njhpe;JtpLk; vd;gjhy; ehd; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; nfhLj;j Gfhiu Ntz;Lnkd;Nw tof;fpy; jhf;fy; nra;ahky; kiwj;Js;Nsd; vd;why; rupay;y. ... Gfhh;jhuplk; vd; kprpid ngw;Wf;nfhz;l gpd;G jhth tof;if Gfhh;jhuh; thg]; ngwtpy;iy vd;W fhty; epiyaj;jpy; 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022Gfhh; vOjpf;nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,e;;j tof;fpw;Fk;> me;j tof;fpw;Fk; njhlh;G ,y;iy vd;gjhy; jhd; ehd; kPz;Lk; Gfhh; nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y.”28. The accused has taken another stand that he gave signed blank cheque, but the same was misused by the complainant. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, the complainant in his evidence would admit that the accused mentioning the amount and by subscribing his signature issued the cheq207ue and rest of the contents were filled, but he did not remember as to who filled the rest of the contents. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in Padmavathy Vs. M/s Sri Balaji Networks in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.523 of 2023, dated 30.06.2023, while dealing with the scope of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observed as follows:“7. The learned Counsel for the complainant would submit that as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder of the cheque either by himself or through any third party can very well fill up the blank cheques and it is necessary to refer Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereunder for better appreciation; “Inchoate stamped instruments : Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022with law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an in complete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same, to nay holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount instead by him to be paid to thereunder.” 8. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in the due Course has every authority to complete the stamped instruments i.e., blank pronote and bill of exchange, delivered to him after properly signing therein by the maker of the instruments and as such Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, will have no application to the blank cheques issued after signing by the drawer. But, at the same time, there is no law which mandates that the cheque shall be filled up by the drawer himself. Similarly, if a drawer of a cheque gives authority to the payee or holder in due course to fill up the cheque signed by him, then the payee or holder in due course can very well fill up the blank 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022cheque by themselves or through a stranger / third party, as there is no bar for the drawer of the cheque to give authority to the third person to fill up the cheque signed by him for the purpose of negotiating the same. 9.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar reported in 2008(2) Crimes 219 (SC) and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:“ Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 243(2) r/w Article 21 of the Constitution of India – An accused has a right to fair trial and to adduce evidence for that purpose – Ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc.Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Section 20 – Only a prima facie right, that too conditional, had been conferred upon the holder of the negotiable instrument – Request of the appellant for referring the cheque to Forensic examination was bona fide.”10. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Prabodh Kumar Tewari reported in 2022 Live law SC 714, wherein it has been held as follows:“ Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138, 139 - A drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert. The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability.”11. In that decision, another judgment of the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex Vs. Balasubramanian reported in 2021(5) SCC 283 was referred and wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the legal position settled in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019)4 SCC 197, wherein it has been held as follows:“14. In Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, after discussing the settled line of precedent of this Court on this issue, a two-Judge Bench held:33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202220, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.[…]36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.(emphasis supplied)”12. The above decisions are clearly applicable to the case on hand. In the present case, according to the petitioner, she has not written the contents of the cheque. As 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022already pointed out, since it is not mandatory for the drawer to fill up the entire instrument by himself, no useful purpose would be served, if the disputed cheques are sent for expert opinion. Even assuming for argument sake, that the expert gives his opinion that the writings found in the cheque are not that of the petitioner, that by itself would not advance the case of the petitioner further. A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability and that the cheque presumption arises under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 139 of the said Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In case if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The standard of proof for rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is guided by prepondrance of probabilities. For deciding the above, the fact that the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person, would be immaterial.” 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202229. Considering the above legal position above referred, the fact that cheque has been filled up not by the accused, but by some other person would be immaterial and as such, the presumption cannot be rebutted by raising such a defence. 30. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, the accused though filed the receipt issued by the police for receiving his complaint, has not chosen to file the copy of the complaint. According to the complainant, Rs.80,000/- referred in the accused complaint before the police has nothing to do with Ex.P.1 cheque transaction and the cheque in dispute was issued for discharging part of the loan due by him. 31. As already pointed out, the accused specifically admitted the receipt of Ex.P.3 statutory notice, but did not explain why he did not respond or set up his defence then. When the accused has taken a stand that he never borrowed Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant nor issued any cheque for Rs.4 lakhs, after receiving legal notice for the dishonor of the cheque and demanding the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- covered by the cheque, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, non-reply at the earliest stage is fatal to the defence now canvassed. 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202232. In Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 11 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed “ ........ the very fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. Apart from not raising a probable defence, the accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.” 33. During cross examination of the accused, the blank promissory note with signatures of the accused was shown to him and on his admission of the signatures, the promissory note came to be exhibited as Ex.P.5. 34. The learned trial Judge, by observing that the complainant had taken unfilled signed promissory note and also the admission of the complainant that he does not remember as to who filled the rest of the contents of the cheque and that the complainant had paid some amount during pendency of the case, has come to a decision that the accused rebutted the presumption and shifted the onus to the complainant. But considering the entire materials available on record and the settled legal position, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the findings of the learned Magistrate are perverse and as such, the same are liable to be set 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022aside. Consequently, this Court concludes that the accused is guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.35. Now turning to the punishment to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta reported in (2017)3 MWN (Crl) DCC 161 SC, has observed that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act related to a civil wrong and the same was a regulatory offence and that the object was described as punitive as well as compensatory. It is very much clear that the intention of the provision is not only to punish the accused, but at the same time, the aggrieved party is to be compensated. 36. Taking into account the nature of the offence and the cheque amount, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 8,00,000 (twice the cheque amount) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Upon payment, the trial court shall disburse the fine as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C.22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202237. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. 28.11.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / NodasTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi. 2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 2022K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.dasPre-delivery order made inCRL.A(MD).No. 759 of 202228.11.202524/24