Crl.A.No.243 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 19.06.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 30.06.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

CRL.A.No.243 of 2016

Vytla Veeranna Chowdary

... Complainant

-Vs-

Mattaparthi Venkateswara Rao

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal

Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in STC No.370 of 2013

dated 09.12.2015 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Yanam and set

aside the order of acquittal.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Ruban Prabu

For Respondent

: Mrs.S.S.Jhothivani

JUDGMENT

This appeal is against the order of aquittal. This case arises under

private complaint initiated otherwise than on police report.

Page 1 of 12

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

Crl.A.No.243 of 2016

2. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant herein, who filed a

complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the alleged offence under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by the accused.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the accused had borrowed a sum

of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant on 09.09.2011 and has issued the

cheque dated 27.02.2013 bearing No.026521 drawn on Indian bank, Yanam

for Rs.2,60,000/-. The cheque when presented for collection was returned

for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant has issued a notice

on 13.03.2013, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within

15 days. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount as demanded, the

present complaint has been filed against him for an offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After observing the formalities the

case is taken on file.

Page 2 of 12

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

Crl.A.No.243 of 2016

4. (a) The case of the complainant both in the complaint as well as in

the witness box as PW1 is that the accused approached him to advance a

sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet his family expenses. He has agreed to repay

the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Therefore, the

complainant has advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as loan on 09.09.2011.

The Accused has executed a Promissory Note-Ex.P1, agreeing to repay the

principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24%

per annum. After repeated demands, the accused has issued Ex.P2 the

cheque bearing No.026521 dated 27.02.2013, drawn on Indian Bank, Yanam

for Rs.2,60,000/- as part payment of the above debt. The complainant

presented the cheque through Andhra Bank, Yanam. It was returned unpaid

for want of sufficient funds. The Return Memo of Indian Bank is Ex.P3. It

was given to the complainant by his banker Andhra Bank, Yanam on

13.03.2013 along with Ex.P4 another Memo.

(b) Thereafter the complainant has issued Ex.P5 Statutory Notice on

Page 3 of 12

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

Crl.A.No.243 of 2016

13.03.2013, demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount with the

stipulated period. Having received the notice under Ex.P6, the

Acknowledgment Card, the accused without repaying the amount has issued

a Reply Notice under Ex.P7. Therefore, the complainant alleges that the

accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The accused has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

The trial Court has held that the complainant has not proved the financial

capacity to lend Rs.3 Lakhs and accordingly, acquitted the accused and

hence, the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant could contend

that the trial Court has not considered the statutory presumption for which

the appellant/complainant is entitled to and wrongly cast the burden upon

the appellant to prove the case.

Page 4 of 12

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

Crl.A.No.243 of 2016

7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

8. After perusing Ex.P1-Promissory note, Ex.P2-Cheque, Ex.P3-

Return