IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Veeramani ... Appellant Vs Sridharan ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the judgment made in C.C.No.2727/2017 dated 29.01.2020 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 4, George Town at Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Rajan for Mr.K.Ravikrishnasamy For Respondent : Ms.S.Meeha

ORDER

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court IV, Georgetown, Chennai, dated 29.01.2020 in C.C.No. 2727 of 2017. By the said judgment, the respondent was acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that the accused and the complainant reside in the same locality. The accused and his wife became family friends of the complainant. Taking advantage of this relationship, the accused borrowed money from the complainant during 2015–2016 as hand loans on several occasions to meet his medical expenditures and the basic needs of his family, totaling Rs. 8,00,000/-. To discharge this liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 04.05.2017 for the said sum.

3. Upon presentation of the cheque for collection, it was returned dishonoured on 09.05.2017 with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer.” When the complainant informed the accused, the accused expressed his financial situation, requested re-presentation of the cheque. Accordingly, the cheque was again presented for collection on 20.06.2017 and this time it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds.” A statutory notice dated 07.07.2017 was issued, calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period. However, the accused evaded the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4. Upon recording the sworn statement, the case was taken on file. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies were furnished and questioning, the accused denied the imputation and stood trial. In order to bring home the guilt, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1. The subject matter cheque was marked as Ex.P1, the first return memo as Ex. P2, the second return memo as Ex. P3, the statutory notice as Ex. P4, and the return cover as Ex. P5.

5. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was presented on behalf of the defence. The trial Court considered the case of the parties, the answers given by the complainant/P.W.1 during cross-examination and after noting their discrepancies with reference to the nature of advancing the loan, the number of installments, the time and period of advancing the loan and the relationship between the accused and the complainant, held that by the said cross-examination, the accused had rebutted the presumption. In the absence of further evidence, since the case of the complainant was doubtful, the trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.

6. Mr.A.N.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking this Court through the judgement of the trial Court would point out that firstly in this case the trial Court itself has admitted that the complainant has duly discharge is onus in proving the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the negotiable instruments Act, 1881. Once the complainant discharges is initial onus, the presumption under Section 139 and 118 comes into play and the presumption is there for the fact that the cheque is issued only for a legally enforceable debt. In that circumstances, it is for the accused to have proved that there was no legally enforceable debt even the defence that is taken