IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Sridevi .. Appellant Versus A.K.Meenambal .. Respondent Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the lower Court's judgment, dated 23^rd February, 2021 in the case of C.C.No.578 of 2016 at the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur.

For Appellant : Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondent : Mrs.M.Abinu Monisha for Mrs.Shyamaladevi

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track (Magisterial Level), Alandur, dated 23.02.2021 made in C.C.No.578 of 2016. By the said judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/accused and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.05.2013 and agreed to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In consideration thereof, the respondent/accused also executed a promissory note. Thereafter, they failed to pay the interest regularly and they did not pay the principal amount also. Therefore, from the month of June, 2013 till the month of March, 2016 for a period of 33 months, the interest of 24% per annum comes to Rs.66,000/-. Adding along with the principal, a cheque was also issued on 07.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,66,000/-. When the same was presented, it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. When a statutory notice was issued on 01.04.2016, after receiving the same, without making payment, the respondent/accused issued a reply notice containing false particulars.

3. Upon recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file. Summons were issued to the respondent/accused. Upon appearance of the respondent/accused, copies were furnished and upon questioning, the respondent/accused denied the imputations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the Power of Attorney Agent of the appellant/appellant/complainant, being her husband, Muthukumar, was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were marked. The Power of Attorney was marked as Ex.P-1. The promissory notice was marked as Ex.P-2. The subject matter cheque was marked as Ex.P-3. The return memo was marked as Ex.P-4. The legal notice was marked as Ex.P-5 The acknowledgment card as Ex.P-6

4. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and materials on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the Manager of Canara Bank, Adambakkam branch, was examined as D.W.1. The husband of the respondent/accused, Kulandaivelu, was examined as D.W.2. Santhosh Kumar, the official from the State Bank of India, Tambaram branch, was examined as D.W.3 and another official from Canara Bank namely, one Prakasam, was examined as D.W.4. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. The Trial Court held that by due cross-examination of the appellant/appellant/complainant and also by letting in evidence, it was proved to the level of preponderance of probability that it is possible that the respondent/accused borrowed the sum only in the year 2012 and thereafter, has been repaying the amount and that the appellant/complainant has used the blank promissory note and the cheque which were handed over at that time and has filed the present case and granted the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and acquitted the respondent/accused. As against which, the Criminal Appeal is filed.

5. Mr.B.Jawahar, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, straightaway strongly relying upon the reply notice issued by the respondent/accused, would contend that firstly, in the reply notice, it is not specifically denied that the respondent/ac