Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
P.Natarajan - Appellant
Vs.
K.Parmalachelvan - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.254 of 2013
Decided On : 27-08-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. M.L.Ramesh
In a criminal case, if the accused can provide a legally acceptable defense that the case lacks bona fide, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Acquittal - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 138 - 118 - 139
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired Revenue Divisional Officer, gave Rs.5,05,000 to the respondent for purchasing land. The respondent issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000, which was dishonored. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the appellant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the evidence, including contradictions in the appellant's statements, and the difference in ink on the cheque, and held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, contradictions in the appellant's statements, and the difference in ink on the cheque.
Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal case, if the accused can provide a legally acceptable defense that the case lacks bona fide, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. When there are two views possible, the one favoring the accused should be considered in an appeal against acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal against the acquittal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.100 of 2010 dated 21.01.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is as follows:
(i) The complainant/appellant is a retired Revenue Divisional Officer, residing at Tiruvaur taluk. The respondent/accused is one of the Committee Members of the Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi at Nagapattinam and he is a distant relative of the appellant. The appellant informed the respondent that he wish to buy a house at Nagapattinam from his retirement benefits. Accordingly, the respondent, on 20.04.2009, approached the appellant and stated that instead of buying a house at Nagapattinam, he may buy a place consisting of 74665 sq.ft. at Nagapattinam E.C.R Road, which is owned by the South Indian Fishermen Federation. Since the respondent is a distant relative of the appellant, for purchase of the said land, they agreed to invest a sum of Rs.5,05,000/- each to execute a sale agreement. On believing the words of the respondent, on 20.04.2009, the appellant gave Rs.5,05,000/- by way of cash. After receiving the said amount, the respondent has not executed any sale agreement in respect of purchase of the place. Later, the appellant, on coming to know that the respondent is a fraud and he is a habitual cheater and cheated many persons by using the name of the political party namely, Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi. Hence, he has written a letter dated 25.07.2009 to the respondent to repay the amount of Rs.5,05,000/-. On receiving the said letter, the respondent came to the house of the appellant and told that as there was a problem, delay was caused in repaying the amount and he spent Rs.5,000/-. Hence, he will repay Rs.5,00,000/- after deducting the expenses of Rs.5,000/- and for which, he issued Ex.P.3, cheque bearing No.683398 in respect of A/c No.609401017201 dated 05.08.2009 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank for Rs.5,00,000/-. When the appellant presented the cheuqe for collection on 05.08.2009 in State Bank of India, the same was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient" on the same day.
(ii) On the contrary, the respondent sent a legal notice dated 05.08.2009 stating that the appellant received Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 03.01.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.02.2009 and accepted to repay the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in two instalments. Accordingly, the appellant gave Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.03.2009 and Rs.50,000/- on 14.04.2009 in two installments in the presence of one Pushparaj and he assured that he will repay the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- within one month. But, the respondent, on 10.08.2009 met the appellant in his house and informed that without his knowledge, his brother-in-law only sent the legal notice before two months, and requested him to give two months time to repay the due amount. Accordingly, the appellant presented the cheque on 04.11.2009 at Thaico Bank, Thiruvarur and again it was returned due to insufficiency of funds on 05.11.2009. In such circumstances, the respondent again on 12.11.2009 sent two other legal notices to the appellant. The appellant sent another legal notice dated 18.11.2009 to the respondent giving 15 days time to repay the said amount, for which, the respondent sent Ex.P.11, notice dated 03.12.2009 to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant preferred the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court below after taking cognizance of the offence, took the complaint on file.
(iii) In order to prove the case of the appellant, he himself examined as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12.
(iv) Since the matter was pending before the Court below, when the above incriminating materials were put to the respondent/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent denied the same as false. However, in order to p
