##PAGE1##

CRL RC No. 832 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C.No. 832 of 2022

Dhanraj ..Petitioner

Vs V.J.Vijayakumar

..Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the Crl.RC and set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble XVI Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai in CA.No.115 of 2018 dated 15.10.2019 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate FTC-I Court, Allikulam in CC.No.2601 of

2010 dated 03.03.2018.

For Petitioner: Mrs.Syba Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent: Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the Judgment dated

15.10.2019 passed in C.A.No.115 of 2018 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Judgment dated 03.03.2018 in C.C.No.2601 of 2010 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track

__________

Page1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 01:38:16 pm )

CRL RC No. 832 of 2022

Court – I, Allikulam, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the respondent is that he is running a business as a wholesale dealer in building materials and the accused, being his customer, used to purchase the building materials from him for several years. Taking advantage of the same, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- during the month of July and August 2009. In order to discharge the said loan amount, the accused issued seven cheques and the same were presented for collection. However, all the cheques were returned dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After causing a statutory notice, the respondent lodged a

complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

3. In order to prove the complaint, the respondent examined himself

as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 to

D.W.3 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court

found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple

__________

Page2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 01:38:16 pm )

CRL RC No. 832 of 2022

imprisonment and awarded compensation to the cheque amount. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has

been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted

that the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and even then, the Trial Court convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. When the accused rebutted the presumption, the entire burden shifted to the shoulder on the respondent to prove that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt. However, the respondent failed to prove the same, except the cheques, no other documents were produced. Further, it is submitted that the respondent has not even specified the exact date on which the alleged loan of

Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced to the accused.

6. He further submitted that, on receipt of the statutory notice, the

accused caused a reply notice dated 19.02.2010, which was marked as Ex.P4. In the said reply, the accused categorically denied the borrowal of any loan amount from the respondent. On the contrary, it was stated that the accused had business transactions with one Saravanan and Manikandan,