Advocates:
['M/S G SUMITRA', '', 'U MEHARUNISHA', 'M/S P DHILEEPAN', '', 'S SATHISHKUMAR COUNSEL', 'M SYLVESTER JOHN']

Crl.A.No.1055 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 18.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.A.No.1055 of 2022

S.Murugan

...Appellant

-Vs-

G.Uthaman

...Respondent

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. praying to set

aside the order dated 04.12.2020 in C.C.No.158 of 2017 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level),

Thiruvannamalai.

For Appellant

:

Mrs.G.Sumitra

For Respondents

:

Mr.P.Dhileepan

*******

JUDGMENT

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

The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level),

1/12

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

Crl.A.No.1055 of 2022

Thiruvannamalai, and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the

complaint in C.C.No.158 of 2017.

2

Case of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant is an

agriculturist and doing real estate business also. The accused is a retired

Teacher, who worked as a Head Master in Adayur Village for about 5 years

and well known to the complainant, utilizing the same the accused

demanded money to settle his urgent loan availed for his son and daughter's

marriage. Based on the assurance given by the accused, the complainant

advanced a loan for a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- and accused has also agreed to

repay the loan within six months and also to pay interest at the rate of 24%

p.a. and issued a post dated cheque dated 03.07.2009 bearing No.114970

drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch for Rs.1,25,000/- and also a

cheque dated 10.07.2009 bearing No.039038 drawn on ICICI Bank,

Tiruvannamalai Branch for Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused assured the

complainant that during first week of July, 2009 a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- will

be available in his Bank Account and during the second week of July 2009 a

sum of Rs.10,00,000/- will be available in his Bank Account. Thereafter on

2/12

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

Crl.A.No.1055 of 2022

17.06.2009, the accused again received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the

complainant by executing demand pro-note agreeing to repay the same with

interest at the rate of 12% p.m. and assured to repay the amount as and

when demanded by the complainant. On 03.07.2009, when the complainant

presented the cheque bearing No.114970 for collection as advised by the

accused, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”

through memo dated 10.07.2009. Further on the same day the complainant

presented the another cheque bearing No.039038 and same was also

returned on 21.07.2009 as “funds insufficient”. Therefore the complainant

issued a legal notice on 21.07.2009 demanding repayment of the loan

amount and the accused has also received the same on 24.07.2009, but,

neither he repaid the loan, nor sent any reply and hence the complaint.

3

In order to substantiate the complaint, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the

accused, no one was examined and one document was marked as R.W.1.

After trial, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the

respondent.

3/12

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

Crl.A.No.1055 of 2022

4

Aggrieved over the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has

filed the present appeal before this Court.

5

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant

would submit that the respondent/accused borrowed money and gave

cheuqes towards discharge of the debt and when the complainant presented

the same for collection as advised by the respondent/accused, it were

returned and hence the complainant caused legal notice, but in spite of

receipt of the notice, the respondent/accused neither repaid the amount nor

sent any reply. Further, the respondent/ac