BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :20.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.A(MD)No.514 of 2019 S.C.Sekar @ Chandrasekar ... Appellant Vs Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam ... Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of acquittal as made in C.A.No.57 of 2018 by means of a judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palani, Dindigul District reversing the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Fast Track Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Palani, Dindigul District, dated 08.06.2018 made in CC No.56 of 2017 in the commission of offence as punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham For Respondent : Mr.C.Meenakshi Rama Prabhu

J U D G M E N T

The appellant/complainant in CC No. 56 of 2017 has lodged a private complaint as against the respondent herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Palani, Dindigul for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the respondent was tried, found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in CC No.56 of 2017, dated 08.06.2018, the respondent/accused has preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani, Dindigul in C.A.No.57 of 2018 and the same was allowed by the first Appellate Court and the respondent/accused was acquitted by judgment, dated 30.04.2019. Aggrieved, the complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal, challenging the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court in C.A.No.57 of 2018, dated 30.04.2019.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that the respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the liability, she has issued a cheque bearing No.616817, dated 31.08.2016 to the complainant. When the same was presented by the complainant for encashment, it was returned as ''stoppage of payment''. The learned counsel further submitted that the disputed cheque belongs to the respondent/accused and the signature found in the cheque has also been admitted by her. Since the respondent/accused has not honoured the cheque and it has been returned without realisation, the appellant has issued a legal notice as required under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, however, it has not been received by the respondent and returned on 27.12.2016 that the respondent/accused was not available. Therefore, the appellant has lodged a private complaint and the same was taken on file in CC No.56 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Palani, Dindigul District.

3.According to the learned counsel, once the signature found in the disputed cheque has not been denied by the respondent and the cheque has not been honoured, presumption arise under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, without considering the same, the first Appellate Court has acquitted the respondent and therefore, the judgment of the first Appellate Court needs to be interfered with.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that the respondent is about 93 years old. At the time of occurrence, she was 87 years. She is a wealthy person, having no issues and taking advantage of the same, an attempt has been made by her power agent and her relatives to take away her properties under threat and coercion. They have foisted this false case as against the respondent/ accused. According to the learned counsel, the Cheque has been misused by her power agent. There is no necessity for her to borrow a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs from the complainant, who is not having any source of income.

5.The learned cou