The court remitted the case back to the trial court to consider additional documents and dispose of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 - The court remitted the case back to the trial court to consider additional documents filed and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, who is the power of attorney holder of Tmt. Pinky Chordia, alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 25,00,000 from Tmt. Pinky Chordia and issued four cheques which were dishonored. The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the complainant appealed against the order.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court observed that the trial court's conclusion that the complainant had not proved the legally enforceable debt was erroneous. The High Court also noted that the complainant had filed additional documents, including the promissory note, bank statement, and decree in a civil suit, which were not considered by the trial court. Therefore, the High Court remitted the case back to the trial court to consider all the documents and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the complainant had proved the legally enforceable debt, and whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court found that the trial court's conclusion that the complainant had not proved the legally enforceable debt was erroneous, as the complainant had filed additional documents that were not considered by the trial court. The High Court remitted the case back to the trial court to consider all the documents and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The High Court remitted the case back to the trial court to consider all the documents and dispose of the case in accordance with law.

JUDGEMENT

Challenging the order of acquittal dated 22.07.2016 passed in C.C.No.3176/2012 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court - II, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / complainant.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranks in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the appellant / complainant in a nutshell is as follows :

3.1. The complainant Thiru.M.Saravanan is the Power of Attorney of Tmt.Pinky Chordia. Tmt.Pinky Chordia, is doing money lending business and on 22.10.2009, the accused Thiru.M.Srinivasan, borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from her by way of account payee cheque bearing number 041168 dated 22.10.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai and executed a promissory note promising to repay the principal together with interest @ 24% per annum. He also agreed to pay the interest at the end of every month. However, the accused did not keep up his promise and after much persuasion, he issued the following cheques :<br/>

S.No.	Cheque No.	Date	Amount	Exhibits
1.	136894	29.02.2012	Rs.5,00,000/-	Ex.P2
2.	136895	29.02.2012	Rs.5,00,000/-	Ex.P3
3.	136896	29.02.2012	Rs.5,00,000/-	Ex.P4
4.	136897	29.02.2012	Rs.25,00,000/-	Ex.P5

3.2. When the complainant presented the cheques (Ex.P2 to Ex.P5) for collection on 01.03.2012 through his bankers, viz., ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai, the cheques were returned for the reason “Exceeds Arrangements”, as is seen from the debit advice dated 03.03.2012 and 05.03.2012 (Ex.P6 to Ex.P9).

3.3. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.P10) to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount due under the cheques within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.

3.4. The accused received the statutory notice on 16.03.2012, as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgement card (Ex.P11) but did not come forward to make good the payment. He did not also send any reply notice.

3.5. Therefore, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court - II, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent / accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act) in C.C.No.3176/2012.

3.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and issued summons to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

3.7. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation made in the complaint was put to the accused and since he pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial.

3.8. The complainant Thiru.M.Saravanan, Power of Attorney holder of Tmt.Pinky Chordia examined himself and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

3.9. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied of having committed any offence. However, he did not examine any witness on his side.

3.10. The learned trial court judge after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., vide his judgment and orders dated 22.07.2016, aggrieved over which, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.

4. Heard Mr.K.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr.K.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the appellant contended that i. the accused had not denied his signature on the cheques (Ex.P2 to Ex.P5) and did not also choose to send any reply to the statutory notice issued by the complainant ;

ii. the initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document