BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12/09/2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl. A(MD)No.655 of 2024 Sankarappan : Appellant/Complainant Vs.

Usharani : Respondent/Accused Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section

419 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment of acquittal in CC No.282 of 2022, dated 24/05/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District and set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.M.Jothi Basu

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the acquittal judgment passed in CC No.282 of 2022, dated 24/05/2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

2.The facts in brief:-

The appellant herein filed a private complaint against the respondent under section 200 Cr.P.C for punishing her with the following averments:-

Both are friends. The respondent approached for hand loan on 05/06/2018. Rs.30,00,000/- was demanded by the respondent. On that date, he gave Rs.30,00,000/- as hand loan in the presence of the witnesses. To discharge the loan amount, she issued a cheque bearing No.109254 on 16/05/2022 itself. She agreed to pay the interest at the rate of Rs.1.00/- per Rs.100/-. But neither principal amount nor interest was paid. The cheque was presented for payment on 16/07/2022. But it returned as dishonoured due to Insufficient Funds on 18/07/2022. After completing the statutory formalities, he filed the private complaint for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.The trial court has taken cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act issued summons and on summons, the respondent appeared before the trial Court. The trial court questioned the accused by stating the substance of the complaint, she denied the accusation.

4.The appellant had examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the accused, she examined herself as RW1 and marked two documents documents.

5.After examination of the witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, with regard to incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidences.

6.At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial court acquitted the accused disbelieving the case.

7.Against which, this criminal appeal is preferred assailing the judgment of acquittal.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent admitted the signature in the disputed cheque; when the signature is admitted, naturally presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments comes into operation; there was no proper rebuttal evidence by the respondent; The defence taken by the respondent is not related to this transaction, it is some other transaction, which has no relevancy at all. He is referring to large number of judgments to support his arguments viz., Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another [2019(1) Crimes 291 (SC)]; and Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant [2022(1)MWN(Cr.)(DCC)139 (SC)].

10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that except the disputed cheque, no other document evidencing the loan transaction was produced; The amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is not a small money, which one will give as hand loan without any document. He would also submit that Ex.D1 mortgage deed was produced by the respondent to probabilise her defence; In that document, the complainant signed as attesting witness; When the loan accepted on the date of the present alleged transaction, there is no possibility for lending such a huge amount without any document. To probabilise his defence, he is also referring to the following judgments namely (1)Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde [(2008)2 SCC (Cri) 166]; (2)K.Prabakaran Vs. R.Alagesan [2023(2)T.N.L.R. 483(Mad)(MB); and (3)Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa [2024(2)