2026:MHC:1174 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 13.03.2026 Pronounced on 24.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.R.C.No.1922 of 2025 N.Makizhnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Karthikeyan

2. The State Rep. By The Public Prosecutor … Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Section 442 of BNSS r/w 438 of BNSS., to set aside the judgement dated 21.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.549 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate III of Coimbatore, confirming the judgement in C.A.No.89 of 2022 dated 11.11.2022 on the file of III Additional District Judge of Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani For Respondents : M/s.V.Gayadhri Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The present revision arises against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 11.11.2022.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:-

(a) According to the complainant, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 23.12.2013. In evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. Initially, two cheques were issued by the accused for Rs.3,00,000/- each, were honoured in the last week of June 2014. Thereafter, on 02.10.2014, the accused again borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant. But, he failed to repay the balance due and interest from February 2015 onwards. (b) On repeated demands, in order to repay the legally enforceable debt, the accused issued a cheque drawn on City Union Bank bearing No.835510 dated 25.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. However, before the date of presentation of cheque, the accused issued a legal notice to the complainant with false averments. To which the complainant sent a reply. When the cheque was presented for collection through the State Bank of India, Coimbatore Main Branch, the same was returned with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”, vide memo dated 26.06.2015.

(c) Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 01.07.2015 and the same was served on the accused on 02.07.2015. However, despite the statutory period of 15 days being granted to repay the cheque amount, the accused failed to do so. Hence, according to the complainant, the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act” for short). In pursuance thereof, a complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.549 of 2015.

3. Before the Trial Court, the complainant examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the petitioner/accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant had discharged his burden of proof and consequently found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo nine months simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation of Rs.39,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence and documents on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.11.2022. Not satisfied with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the present revision has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would vehemently contend that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court did not consider the material aspect relating to the liability, as the complainant failed to prove any legally enforceable debt. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that the appeal was dismisse