BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 08.07.2021 Pronounced on : 03.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.A.(MD)No.402 of 2016 R.Srinivasan ... Petitioner Vs.

Palanimuthu ... Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code to grant leave for the appellant to file this appeal, call for the records relating to the order dated 31.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, set aside the same and allowing the above Criminal Appeal arising out of the above Criminal Appeal filed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli in C.C.No.514 of 2006, dated 10.02.2013.

For Appellant : Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappall in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2014, dated 31.10.2014.

2.The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows:

2.1.The appellant is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli. As per the complaint, the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, is alleged to have obtained loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant on 12.03.2006 for which he had issued a cheque on 04.09.2006. When the same was presented by the complainant on the same day, it was returned for insufficient funds on 05.09.2006. Therefore, he had sent statutory notice on 13.09.2006 calling upon the accused to settle the dues within fifteen days, failing which, he will be forced to take legal action through Court of law. The accused received the notice on 16.09.2006 and he had issued reply on 04.10.2006 whereby he claimed that he had not executed any promissory note or cheque in favour of the complainant. As per his claim in the reply notice, he had already borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from one Chidambaram for which he had issued a blank check duly signed towards repayment of the same. He had repaid the same to the said Chidambaram and sought return of the promissory note as well as the blank cheque. The said Chidambaram did not return the cheque or the blank promissory note stating that they were missing and he will trace it out and return the same. The said Chidambaram died. The complainant herein, a relative of Chaidambaram, who had placed his hands on the blank cheque and promissory note under the custody of the said Chidambaram and this complainant is not an acquaintance to the accused. He is a stranger. Therefore, the accused is not liable to pay any amount as demanded in the statutory notice.

2.2.In spite of the reply given by the accused, the complainant had lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI had taken cognizance of the private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he had issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the complaint were furnished along with copies of the records viz., Cheque, Promissory Note and Notice. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli had ordered trial. In the trial, the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and the documents in support of the complaint were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. No other witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant.

Ex.P1 is the original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of the complainant dated 12.03.2006.

Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.0855534 drawn in favour of the complainant on State Bank of India, Kailasapuram Branch for Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.P3 is the cheque deposit chalan dated 04.09.2006.

Ex.P4 is the memo issued from the