The legal principle established is the necessity to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt in cheque dishonor cases, emphasizing the roles of burden of proof and statutory presumptions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.No.801 of 2012 S.K.Elumalai ... Appellant Vs.

K.Madhu Srinivas ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 375 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of acquittal in C.C.No.5260 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Magistrate-III, Saidapet, Chennai and punish the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing the cheque bearing No.928158 dated 10.01.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kilpauk Branch without sufficient funds.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Rishi for Mr.R.Balachandran For Respondent : Ms.Sumi Arnica Legal Aid Counsel JUDGMENT The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) against the respondent in C.C.No.5260 of 2006. The learned Fast Track Magistrate-III, Saidapet, Chennai by judgment dated 10.07.2012 dismissed the complaint. Against which, the present appeal filed.

2.The gist of the complaint is that the complainant received a cheque for Rs.6,70,000/- bearing No.928158 dated 10.01.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank, Kilpauk Branch issued by the respondent towards legally enforceable debt. At the time of issuing the cheque, the respondent informed the appellant that sufficient funds available in the bank account maintained by him in ICICI bank, Kilpauk Branch. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through Indian Bank, Sholinganallur Branch on 12.01.2006, but the cheque was returned for the reason "Payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, the appellant questioned the respondent and the respondent requested the appellant not to initiate any legal proceedings for dishonour of cheque and once again requested to present the cheque for collection in the month of March. Hence on 15.03.2006, the cheque was again presented, but again, it was returned for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer." Thereafter, statutory notice issued on 21.03.2006 which was served on the respondent and thereafter following the statutory procedures, the complaint was filed. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked five documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the respondent, one Ranjith Kumar was examined as D.W.1 and through him Ex.D1 marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent not denied the issuance of cheque, his signature in the cheque but takes a stand that the cheque was issued as security. Once the drawer of the cheque admits his signature and issuance of the cheque, statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act comes into play. The respondent failed to get into the dock and probabilise his case, on the other hand, one Ranjith Kumar claiming to be a known person to both the appellant and the respondent was examined and through him Ex.D1/Sale deed entered between Indirani and Jegadeesan, wife and son of Rathina Naicker with M/s.Zillion Estates Private Limited with regard to the land of 78 cents in Shollinganallur Village. The respondent is a party to the document as Confirming Party. The appellant is the relative of the said Indirani and Jegadeesan. The respondent as an agent of M/s.Zillion Estates Private Limited approached the appellant and the appellant, a relative of the vendors to the property negotiated and the price was fixed. It was agreed that the appellant would be given Rs.10,000/- as brokerage for each cent. Thus it was agreed to pay Rs.7,80,000/- and as part payment Rs.6,70,000/- was paid. The Trial Court given a finding that this fact has not been disclosed either in the statuto