2025:MHC:2940 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL.A.No.430 of 2022 Mr.Manikandan ... Appellant Vs.

Mr.Hendry Martin Luther ...Respondent Prayer:-: This Petition is filed under Section 378 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow this Appeal by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District in CA.No.12 of 2021, order dated 24.11.2021 and also reversing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Level, Kallakurichi in C.C.No.97/2018 order dated 09.08.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.S,Suresh For Respondents : Mr.R.Raja Prasanna

O R D E R

This appeal is filed against the judgement of the III Additional Session Judge, Villupuram @ Kallakurichi dated 24.11.2021 made in Crl.A.No.12 of 2021. By the said judgment the Appellate Court reversed the finding of guilt made by the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent. By the judgement dated 09.08.2021, the Trial Court, namely, the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Court Level) Kallakurichi had in CC No. 97 of 2018 found the respondent guilty of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation.

2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant under Section

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the complainant is that he is doing several businesses such as milk store, departmental store and catering business and by the business oriented basis the accused came to be known to the complainant for the past five years. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- for his urgent family expenses and to repay the family debts on 07.03.2018. At the time of borrowal, the accused promised to repay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- within 45 days and issued a post dated cheque dated 23.04.2018 for the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The accused promised to pay the balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash within the said 45 days. When the said cheque was presented for collection on 23.04.2018, the same returned dishonoured with an endorsement “kindly contact Drawer/ Drawee Bank and please present again”. The complainant was intimated about the dishonour of the cheque by a memo dated 25.04.2018. It is stated that the complainant and his relations including his wife conveyed the facts of returning of cheque to the accused and demanded the debt. On 18th May 2018, a session through middleman was arranged and during the said session the accused issued a fresh post dated cheque for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- dated 13.06.2018. The said cheque was presented for collection on 13th June 2018. However, once again the complainant received the dishonour intimation with the endorsement “kindly contact Drawer/ Drawee Bank and please present again”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice on 10.07.2018. However, no amount was paid within the period. The accused only issued a reply notice on 02.08.2018. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

3. Upon recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file. Upon issuance of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and the matter was taken to trial. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one of his friend was examined as P.W. 2. On behalf of the complainant Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.

4. Upon questioning about the material evidence on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and the Manager of his bank was examined as DW.2. On behalf of the accused Ex. D1 to Ex.D 5 were marked. Through DW 2, three documents were marked as Ex.X.1 to X.3. Thereafter, the Trial Court after considering the case of the accused held that the accused has not done enough to rebut the presumption and disbelieved the version of the defence and found the