CRL A. NO. 1427 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRL A NO. 1427 of 2023

P.Raj

S/o.Palraj Petitioner(s)

Vs

G.Saroja

W/o.Ganesan Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the acquittal of the respondent in the above STC.No.465 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode, by the Judgement dated 30.08.2023 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Swaminathan

For Respondent(s):

No appearance

JUDGEMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant / complainant

seeking to set aside the acquittal order passed in STC.No.465 of 2017 dated

30.08.2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode.

2. Challenging the findings of the Courts below, the complainant has preferred the present appeal. Before the Trial Court, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, stating that on 15.01.2017, for urgent family needs, the accused borrowed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. In order to discharge the said loan, the accused issued a post-dated cheque dated 15.04.2017 bearing Cheque No.862727 drawn on State Bank of India, Balaji Nagar Branch, Chennai. 3. At the request of the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 18.04.2017. However, the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused. Though the accused received the notice, he neither sent any reply nor repaid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also sought compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Upon issuance of summons, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and denied the offence. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused contended that he was not aware of the complaint and raised a defence that the alleged cheque had been given to one Advocate Bharath as security in connection with a civil case. He further contended that he had not borrowed any loan from the complainant.

5. On the other hand, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced the cheque, return memo, and copy of the statutory notice. Upon considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge held that the complainant was residing at Chennai but originally belonged to Thoothukudi, whereas the accused was a resident of Chennai. The Trial Court observed that there was no specific averment as to how the complainant became acquainted with the accused when they were residing in different places. It was further observed that the complainant was running an electrical shop and had allegedly lent money without charging interest, which, according to the Trial Court, was unbelievable. The Trial Court also noted that the complainant admitted that the cheque was issued in the office of the one Advocate Bharath. Based on these assumptions, the Trial Court held that the defence of the accused that the cheque had been misused at the instigation of Bharath was probable and concluded that there was no legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said findings, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent/accused had not denied the signature found on the cheque and had also not disputed that the cheque was drawn from his bank account. Therefore, the issuance of the cheque by the accused stands prima facie established, which is sufficient to draw the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of t