IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY N.S.Muthuveeran S/o.Sellandikandar ...Appellant Vs.

E.Dhachinamoorthy, S/o.Easwaran ...Respondent This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode and convict the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

For Appellant : Ms.D.Sathya for M/s.Zeenath Begum For Respondent : Mr.John Alexander for Mr.E.K.Kumaresan

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode dated

22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014.

2. The case is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for an alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/accused and the appellant/complainant are family friends and both of them are also Advocates and in view of the friendship, the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for his urgent family expenses and business development and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. The respondent/accused agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per Rs.100/- per month as and when demanded by the complainant. The accused was paying the interest to the complainant regularly and when the complainant demanded repayment of the principal on 15.10.2010, on 21.10.2010 the respondent/accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the same was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, statutory notice was issued. The respondent/accused did not make any payment, however issued a reply notice containing false information and hence, the complaint was filed.

3. Upon recording a sworn statement, the complaint was taken on record and summons were issued to the respondent/accused and upon appearance and furnishing of copies, the respondent/accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the appellant/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Branch Manager of Salem District, Central Co-operative Bank was examined as P.W.2 and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and the circumstances on record, the respondent/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the respondent/accused examined the Assistant Manager, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank as D.W.1 and one M.Shanmugam as D.W.2 and exhibits D1 to D6 were also marked. The Trial Court, considered the case of the parties and several circumstances, which were against the appellant/complainant including the fact that the cheque was an old cheque of the year 2004 not having any MICR code and the appellant/complainant being unable to produce any other supportive documents and the appellant/complainant being the counsel of the Sakthi Finance, where the respondent/accused borrowed the amount and when the appellant/complainant said to have been issued a notice for not made out an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the year 2006 had chosen to advance a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as cash in the year 2010 and for all the circumstances, the Trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. As against the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once the accused admits the signature in the cheque, the presumption is in favour of the appellant/complainant. The respondent/accused had not proved the fact that the cheque was issued only to Sakthi Finance. Even the Branch Manager of Sakthi Finance, who was examined as D.W.2 did not say so. As far as the cheque is concerned, the appellant/complainant has ca