IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. V.Babu Appellant(s)

Vs

1. P.Thiyagarajan S/o.Ponnusamy Mo745, Tnhb Taj Nagar, Spb Colony Post, Erode Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms.T.Harshan Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesh for Mr.N.Manokaran

ORDER

Today, the matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

2.The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submitted that she has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 to represent the appellant. But in the order dated 22.10.2025, there is no mention about her preparation and strenuous argument and the payment of fee to the Legal Aid Counsel.

3.It is seen that Ms.T.Harshana has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the appellant by this Court. In the order dated 22.10.2025, the payment payable to the Legal Aid Counsel has been omitted to be mentioned. Hence, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras is directed to pay the fee to the Legal Aid Counsel as per the existing rules.

4.The Registry is directed to incorporate the above in the order dated 22.10.2025 and issue fresh copy of the order dated 22.10.2025.

5.The issue is clarified, accordingly.

11.11.2025 rsi To

1.The Tami Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi

11.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1.V.Babu Appellant(s)

Vs

1.P.Thiyagarajan S/o.Ponnusamy Mo745, T.N.H.B., Taj Nagar, SPB Colony [Post], Erode-10. ....Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.C.No.158 of 2011 on 23.12.2011 acquitting the respondent/accused from the charges U/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitting them under Section 255(1) I.P.C and re trial the complaint.

For Appellant : Ms.Harshana.T, Legal-Aid-Counsel For Respondent :Mr.N.Manokaran **********

J U D G M E N T

This Court, on 26.09.2025, had passed the following order:

The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.158 of 2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 23.12.2011, dismissed the complaint, discharged the accused, against which, the present appeal is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and the respondent are known to each other for quiet some time. The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.02.2007 for urgent family expenses. To discharge the said liability, the respondent issued the cheque dated 30.03.2007 drawn on IndusInd Bank, Erode branch bearing cheque No.070329 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. On instructions from the respondent, the cheque was presented on 02.04.2007 and the same was returned with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 03.04.2007. The appellant had sent a statutory notice on 13.04.2007, which was returned on 18.04.2007 with an endorsement as 'not claimed'. Thereafter, filed the complaint.

3.During trial, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence, three witnesses examined including the respondent and marked Exs.D1 and D2.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the primary ground on which the complaint was dismissed is that Ex.P3/statutory notice was sent on 13.04.2007 and the postal receipt is marked as Ex.P4 and the returned postal cover is marked as Ex.P5. In the address portion, there is some correction in the name and confusion arose as to whether the addressee is P.Thiyagarajan or Thangarajan. According to the appellant, it is clear that in the postal returned cover/Ex.P5 the name of the respondent written as P.Thiyagarajan, S