IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.04.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN K.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

T.S.Balaji ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment, conviction passed against the petitioner by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in CA.No.72 of 2019 on 25.07.2023 confirming and modifying the judgment, conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram in CC.No.756 of 2011 dated 30.07.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shabeer Ahmed For Respondent : Mr.P.Narayanan

ORDER

This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment, conviction passed against the petitioner by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in CA.No.72 of 2019 on 25.07.2023 confirming and modifying the judgment, conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram in CC.No.756 of 2011 dated 30.07.2019.

2. The respondent is the complainant, who lodged complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- for hotel development business. In order to repay the said amount, the accused issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively. Both the cheques were presented for collection. However, they were returned dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged complaint and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. In order to prove the complaint, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked to disprove the complaint. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-. He was also ordered to pay compensation to the tune of the cheque amount to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the accused.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.

5. On perusal of the records and also on the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is revealed that one of the cheques was marked as Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is revealed that it was issued by Annapoorna Vegeterian Restaurant signed by one of its partners. However, the respondent caused legal notice only to the person who signed the cheque and he did not cause any notice to the partnership firm by name ‘for Annapoorna Vegeterian Restaurant’ or any of the other partners. Once the cheque was issued in the name of the partnership firm, it is required to issue statutory notice to the partnership firm and also the other partners. Further, the respondent also failed to implead the partnership firm and the other partners as accused, which is fatal to the case of the respondent. Further the respondent failed to state that how he was acquainted with the accused to lend such a huge amount of Rs.3,25,000/-, that too without receiving any security document. In fact, the respondent did not even whisper the date on which the accused borrowed loan to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/-. No prudent person would lend such huge amount of loan without any security document. In fact, the respondent failed to whisper about the date on which the accused borrowed loan. The respondent was examined as PW1. It is relevant to extract the cross examination of the respondent hereunder:

fhnrhiyapy; vjphp g';Fjhuh; vd;W ifbaGj;J nghl;Ls;shh;

vd;why; md;dg{h;zhtpw;F vd;W cs;sJ/ fhnrhiyapy;