Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 781
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Manoharlal - Appellant
Versus
R.Sundararajan & Another - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.549 of 1995
Decided On : 19 August 2002
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof in cases involving the dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint for offence under Section 138 - 138 - Summary: The court discussed the issuance and dishonour of a cheque, the evidence presented by both the complainant and the accused, and the reasons for the acquittal of the accused. The court found that the complainant's evidence was not credible and that the accused had provided a more probable defense. The court concluded that the complainant had filed a false complaint and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused received a loan and issued a cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured. The accused claimed that the cheque was issued as security for another transaction and had been misused by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's evidence was not credible and that the accused had provided a more probable defense. The court concluded that the complainant had filed a false complaint and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Credibility of evidence, misuse of cheque, false complaint
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of credible evidence from the complainant, the defense presented by the accused, and the circumstances surrounding the issuance and dishonour of the cheque to conclude that the complainant had filed a false complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the complainant had filed a false complaint against the accused.
Manoharlal, the appellant herein filed the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents 1 and 2. The case ended in acquittal. Hence, the appeal against the acquittal.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
"The complainant is running a finance company by name "Anand Finance". Sundararajan (A1), the first respondent herein is the Partner of the firm Sri Kalaivani Polymers (A2), the second respondent herein. On 27.7.1994, the first respondent on behalf of the second respondent received a loan of Rs.50,000/- and issued a cheque dated 12.8.1994 for the said sum. On 12.9.1994, the cheque was presented. But, the same was returned on 16.9.1994 with the endorsement "Exceeds Arrangement". On 29.9.1994, the lawyer notice was sent to the respondents demanding the cheque amount. After receipt of this notice, the respondents/accused sent a reply on 6.10.19194 stating that the respondents are not liable to pay any amount. Hence, the complainant filed the above complaint."
3. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Manager of the Bank, who returned the cheque, as P.W.2. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was submitted on their behalf that there is no connection whatsoever with the complainant and neither any amount was received from him nor any cheque was issued in favour of him. On their behalf, the first accused was examined as D.W.1 and one Arasendran was examined as D.W.2.
4. According to D.W.1, on the request of Arasendran (D.W.2), he gave a cheque to Arasendran as a security cheque for helping him to get loan amount from one Ashok Kumar and even though the loan amount obtained by the said Arasendran was discharged at the intervention of the police, the cheque which was issued by the first respondent has been misused by the present complainant Manoharlal, who is the brother of the said Ashok Kumar. This was reiterated by D.W.2.
5. The trial Court on conclusion of the trial, disbelieved the evidence of the complainant and believed the testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2 and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal by the complainant.
6. Mr.Kaithamalaikumaran, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are not sound and when Ex.P1, the cheque had been admittedly issued by the first accused on behalf of the second accused, which was subsequently dishonoured for want of funds, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and as such, the trial Court committed a grave illegality in acquitting the accused.
7. Arguing contra, Mr.Venkateswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the findings given by the trial Court are correct and the defence evidence, oral and documentary, would show that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant and as such, the appeal has to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the records.
9. According to the complainant, he gave a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 27.7.1994 to the first accused and the first accused gave a cheque for Rs.50,000/- on 12.8.1994 on behalf of the second accused and the same was dishonoured on 16.9.1994 and in spite of the receipt of notice, the cheque amount was not paid back.
10. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that the cheque signed by the first accused on behalf of the second accused was never issued to the complainant and no amount was received as a loan by him from the complainant and the cheque which was issued by him as a security for helping one Arasendran was handed over to one Ashok Kumar and the same has been misused by the complainant, who is the brother of the said Ashok Kumar.
11. On the side of the complainant, besides examining P.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.P1 to P11 were marked to show that the loan was given to the accused, who in turn, issued the
