IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2023 Dr.S.K.Aroraa Appellant/complainant Vs Mohan Respondent/Accused PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., praying tocall for the records in C.C.No.128 of 2017 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore and set aside the order of acquittal dated 24.03.2023 thereby convicting the accused and to order payment of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

For Appellant(s): Mr E.Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Mouli

JUDGMENT

Challenging the findings and the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.128 of 2017 by the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, the defacto complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. Before the trial court, the defacto complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the respondent/accused. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of the case and taken it on file in C.C.No.128 of 2017 and on issuance of summons, the accused appeared before the trial court and copies served to him and on questioning the charges framed against him, he denied the offence. He pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and on his side, Exhibits P.1 to P.9 documents were marked. On the side of the accused, none examined but Ex.D.1 sale deed stands in the name of his mother was marked and P.W.1 was put to cross examination.

4. On hearing both sides, the trial Judge held that the defacto complainant proved that there is legally enforceable debt between him and the accused and the complainant filed the case as company's Managing Director, but without authorisation from the company, he presented the complaint, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Being a Director of the Company, he is not entitled to file the present complaint in his individual capacity and the presumption attached with the Negotiable Instruments Act also been rebutted by the accused through relevant circumstances and thus material discrepancies not been properly explained by the complainant by giving plausible explanation thereby held that the complainant failed to prove the case. Thus the complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted. Challenging the said findings, the complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

5. (a) The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the court below failed to presume the complaint in favour of the complainant in consonance with Chapter XVII Section 139. Presumption in favour of holder- “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability”.

(b) The learned counsel also submits that the court below failed to take notice of the fact that the accused has not denied the handing over/authenticity of the cheque drawn by him which was marked as Ex.P.3 nor he denied his signature; inspite of that, the trial court has lost sight of the benevolent provision of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(c) The court below failed to appreciate the loan application which was marked as Ex.P.7 through which, the accused demanded the loan and through the letter Ex.P.8, he also prayed time to pay the amount by admitting the legal liability and the same also not been properly appreciated by the court below which itself is sufficient to conclude that there is a legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused. Therefore, the findings rendered by the court below is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

(d) Learned counsel further pointed out that the complainant lodged a complaint as a Managing Director for M/s.Aroshree Shelter Private Limited and not in individual capacity and to lodge the complaint, there is a Board Resolution da