Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 06.01.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : .03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

Kumar

... Appellant

Vs.

P.K.Raja

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside

the order passed by the Hon'ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Kallakurichi in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2018 against the order in

C.C.No.182/2016 dated 26.07.2018 by the learned Fast Track Judicial

Magistrate, Kallakurichi, allowing the Criminal Appeal by set asiding the

conviction and sentence passed by the Court.

1 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

For Appellant

: Mr. Mohammed Aseef G. Raja

For Respondent

: Mr. D. Vijaya Babu

O R D E R

Challenging the order passed by the III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in Crl.A.No.61 of 2018, dated 29.03.2019 by

setting aside the conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, FTC Court, Kallaurichi in C.C.No.182 of 2016, dated

26.07.2018, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in the month of January 2014,

the respondent/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.45 lakhs for his urgent

family expenses from the petitioner/complainant. Though the

petitioner/complainant asked to repay the said amount, the

respondent/accused failed to repay the same.

Thereafter, the

2 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

respondent/accused gave a cheque bearing No.446833, drawn on State Bank

of India, Chinnasalem Branch in favour of the petitioner/complainant.

When the cheque was presented for collection in the Central Bank of India,

Kallakurichi Branch, it was returned with an endorsement "insufficient

funds." Thereafter, on 03.06.2015, the petitioner/complainant issued a legal

notice to the respondent, in turn, he sent a reply dated 06.06.2015. Since

the respondent/accused gave a cheque to the petitioner without having

sufficient funds in his bank account, only with an intention to cheat the

petitioner/complainant, a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act has been given.

3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after

perusal of the documents, the Trial Court taken cognizance of the offence

under section 138 of N.I.Act and on questioning, the accused denied the

same as false. In order to prove the case of complainant, he examined

himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked.

3 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

4. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. To prove his case, he

examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

5. Having considered all the materials, the Trial Court convicted the

accused under Section 138 and 142 and sentenced to under go simple

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation,

in default, to under go simple imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the

above conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the

lower appellate Court in Crl.A.No.61 of 2018 and the lower Appellate

Court, by order dated 29.03.2019, allowed the same by setting aside the

order passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the

appellant/complainant is before this Court with this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that

the appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused. The

4 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.681 of 2022

respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.45 lakhs from the complainant in

the month of January 2014. To repay the said amount, the accused gave a

State Bank of India cheque bearing No.446833