##PAGE1##

Crl.A.No.194 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.03.2026

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.No.194 of 2015

S. Anandhakumar ... Appellant

Vs.

T. Jothiraj ... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to set aside the Judgment of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Paramathi Velur Namakkal District in S.T.C.No.221 of 2013 by its Judgment dated 27.08.2014 acquitting the accused/respondent for the

offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

For Appellant : Mr.C.D. Johnson For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan, Legal Aid counsel

O R D E R

This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment of the learned

District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Paramathi Velur Namakkal

District in S.T.C.No.221 of 2013 dated 27.08.2014 .

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

Crl.A.No.194 of 2015

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case is as follows:

2.1.The respondent is an accused in the complaint lodged by the

appellant for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the appellant had given a loan to a tune of Rs.4,15,000/- to the respondent for the purchase of the two wheeler. It is stated that after payment of the first installment the respondent failed to pay the remaining installments. When the appellant demanded for the re-payment of loan, the respondent had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,51,000/- to settle the entire amount and when the cheque was presented for payment, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the appellant had lodged the complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Court below for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.2.In order to prove the complaint, the appellant examined himself

as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 were marked .On the side of the

respondent one witness D.W.1 and one document Ex.D.1 was marked.

Page 2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

Crl.A.No.194 of 2015

2.3. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence the Trial

Court found that the respondent was not guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him from the charges.

Aggrieved over the same the appellant has filed this present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent

did not deny the issuance of the cheque and signature found in the cheque. The appellant discharged his initial burden as contemplated under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the respondent failed to rebut the presumption, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Hence, prays to allow this appeal.

4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the respondent had not given loan for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- by hypothecation. The appellant had availed the loan from the respondent only for the purchase of the two wheeler and thereafter failed to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished under

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

Crl.A.No.194 of 2015

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, prays to dismiss

this appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.Perusal of records reveals that according to the appellant herein,

the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- and in order to repay the said amount the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. But the fact remains that the cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.4,51,000/- and the respondent had already availed a loan for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the appellant and he had repaid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. Further the cheque was given for security purpose and the same was misused by the appellant herein to initiate offence under Section 138 o