Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5364

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. Murali Shankar, J.
Thangaesakki - Appellant
Versus
Sivasami - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.757 of 2024
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Shathurthi Raja
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Vignesh

The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 and 139 - Appeal against acquittal - Accused acquitted for lack of evidence under Section 138; complainant not proving financial capacity - Trial Court properly drew presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, but complainant failed to provide evidence of loan capacity - Accused successfully rebutted presumption, leading to dismissal of appeal. (Paras 10, 14, 29)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Complainant has to prove his financial capacity when questioned; absence of evidence shifts burden to him. (Paras 20, 29)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- and issued a cheque which was dishonored for insufficient funds; however, the accused denied borrowing from the complainant and claimed other loans.

Findings of Court:
The presumptions regarding loan and cheque under NI Act were rebutted by the accused's defense, and the complainant's failure to substantiate financial capability led to the conclusion that he could not prove his case.

Issues: Whether the appeal should be allowed based on the trial court's acquittal for lack of evidence under Section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption in favor of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139; hence the acquittal judgment was upheld.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the complaint and case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. overview of trial court proceedings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. details of the arguments presented by the accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. presumptions under ni act. (Para 14 , 15)
5. financial capacity of the complainant. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 28)
6. conclusion of the court dismissing the appeal. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.150 of 2023 dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act.

2. The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent / accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the complainant is that the accused and the complainant were school day friends and were belonging to same place. The accused approached the complainant on 02.11.2022 and requested him to give a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- for his urgent family expenses and agreed to return the same within few months. Considering the request of the accused, the complainant, by utilizing the agricultural income and the loan amount obtained by pledging the jewels, advanced loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the accused having received the same issued a post- dated cheque dated 05.01.2023 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Attur Branch requesting him to present the cheque and encash the same. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 05.01.2023 through his banker Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Attur Branch but the cheque was returned dishonored as funds insufficient vide banker's memo dated 07.01.2023. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2023 to the accused demanding him to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The accused having received the notice sent a reply notice on 01.02.2023 with false and untenable allegations. Since the accused has not paid the cheque amount within stipulated time, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case took the case on file in S.T.C.No.150 of 2023 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court sent the copies of complaint and records along with summons. After appearance of the accused, the accused was questioned about the offence alleged against him and he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.

7. After closure of the complainant's side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating aspects found against him and he denied the same as false. The accused has stated that the accused does not know the complainant, that the accused borrowed loan from one Ramkumar by issuing a cheque and that cheque was utilized and the above case was filed and that the signature found in Ex.P.1 (cheque) is that of his signature. The accused adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2024 holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

9. Whether the