IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY K.Balasubramani ... Appellant Vs N.Saravanan ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the judgment dated 30.01.2020, passed in C.A.No. 52 of 2019 on the file of the Principle District & Sessions Judge, Vellore, confirming the judgment dated 30.04.2019, passed in S.T.C.No. 18 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore, by allowing this criminal Appeal.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raja For Respondent : Mr.E.Kannadasan

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore, dated 30.04.2019 made in S.T.C.No.18 of 2018 and the judgement of the Principle District & Sessions Judge, Vellore, dated 30.01.2020 made in C.A.No. 52 of 2019.

2. By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused 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.

3. The case of the complainant is that he had been acquainted with the accused for several years. In the month of April 2015, the accused approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/- for his family necessity and business purposes. The complainant arranged a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-, which was paid to the accused on 27.04.2015 without any interest. In consideration thereof, a promissory note was also executed by the accused on the same day. When the complainant demanded repayment of the above amount, in partial discharge of the liability, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 18.09.2017. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued and within the statutory period, no payment was made. However, a reply notice dated 11.10.2017 was issued with incorrect facts and particulars. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4. After recording the sworn statement, the case was taken on file as S.T.C.No. 18 of 2018. Upon issuance of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood for trial. In order to bring home the allegations, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Prabhakaran, the witness to the promissory note and borrowal, as P.W.2. The promissory note executed by the accused on 27.04.2015 was marked as Ex,P1; the subject cheque as Ex.P2; the return memo as Ex.P3; the statutory notice as Ex.P4; the acknowledgement card as Ex.P5; the reply notice as Ex.P6 and the signature of P.W.2 in Ex.P1 was marked as Ex.P7.

5. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, on behalf of the accused, one Mohan Raj, brother of the accused, was examined as D.W.1. The accused examined himself as D.W.2. The bank manager of the bank of the accused was examined as D.W.3. The letter given to the bank manager to stop payment under the subject cheque was marked as Ex.D1. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. After appreciating the evidence of both sides, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence let in on behalf of the defence rebutted the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the level of preponderance of probability. Since no further clinching proof was produced by the complainant to establish that Rs.5,40,000/- was borrowed by the accused on 27.04.2015, the Trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.

6. As a matter of fact, in this case, an appeal was originally filed before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, who also confirmed the acquittal. However, in view of the judgment of the Full Benc