Appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case involving an alleged Rs.8,50,000 hand loan. The High Court held the accused plausibly rebutted the Section 139 presumption using bank statements and the complainant's cross-examination answers, found the trial court's benefit-of-doubt verdict not perverse, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
M.Thilaga
... Appellant Vs
R.Sundarrajan ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpet, dated 11.07.2022 in C.C.No.21/2011 and allow the above appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Sairam For Respondents : Mr.K. Mohammed Hydher Ali for Mr.P.Dineshkumar
ORDER
The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial
1/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu dated 11.07.2022 made in C.C.No. 21 of 2011.
By the said judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the complainant is
that the complainant is a dealer in tractors and harvester machines. The accused is a customer of the complainant. The accused had already purchased
a tractor with the harvester machine from the complainant. He had also placed
an order for another machine in his father's name, namely Radha Nayakkar , in
the previous year of filing of the complaint. The accused had borrowed a sum
of Rs.8,50,000/-, of which a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the account of the father of the accused, namely Radha Nayakkar and the balance
was paid in cash. When the complainant demanded the balance outstanding,
the accused issued the subject cheque for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- dated
2/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 09.07.2010. Upon being presented for collection, the cheque was returned
dishonoured as “fund insufficient”. Statutory notice was issued, for which
there was no payment nor any reply and hence the complaint.
Upon issuance of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused
denied the imputations and the matter was taken to trial. In order to bring
home the charge, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and one Dharmendra , the concerned bank manager, was examined as P.W.2. The subject cheque was marked as Ex.P1. The challan for depositing the cheque for collection was marked as Ex.P2. The memo of dishonour was marked as
Ex.P3. The statutory notice was marked as Ex.P4 and the acknowledgment card as Ex.P5. The statement of accounts of Mahalaxmi Agro Services, of
which the complainant is the proprietor, was marked as Ex.P6.
3/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 denied the same as false. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1
and the statement of accounts of the father of the accused was also marked as
Ex.D1. The Trial Court thereafter considered the case of the parties. The Trial Court held that the version of the accused, that the Rs.2,40,000/- which was transferred to the father of the accused related to the purchase of the harvester machine and that the same was also repaid by the father of the accused, is probable with reference to the balance payment made in cash. The Trial Court considered the cross-examination of the complainant and on considering the evidence let in on behalf of the accused, held that the complainant should have let in further proof regarding advancement of money as cash and accordingly
gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him, against which the
present appeal is filed.
firstly submit that the finding of the Trial Court with reference to Ex.D1, that
4/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 is, the money transacted between the father of the accused and the
complainant, has nothing to do with the instant transaction. The complaint
itself reveals that there was yet another transaction with reference to the purchase of a harvester by the father of the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have taken Ex.D1 into account. As far as the subject cheque is concerned, the accused had mentioned different reasons as to how the cheque with his new signature came into the hands of the complainant. The prevaricating statements themselves would falsify the defense. It must be seen
that the complainant is armed with the presumption and once the signature on
the cheque is admitted and the other ingredients are duly proved, the accused has not done anything to disprove the case of the complainant.
cross-examination itself that the accused did not even attempt to examine the
official from Indian Bank. It must also be seen that not even a reply was issued
to the statutory notice. To top it all, pending the case, the accused also made a
5/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 part payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was also put to him when he was in the
box. As a matter of fact, from the proceedings of the Trial Court, it can be seen that on 10.04.2015, the Trial Court recorded that part payment was already made and adjourned the case for further payment. On several occasions, the Trial Court recorded the adjournments for further payment, and absolutely no objection was made on behalf of the accused. For the first time only during defence evidence, the accused denied having paid the Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, it can be seen that the accused has not come up with any consistent version, much less any believable version, to the level of preponderance of probability and in the absence of the same, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused.
for the respondent/accused, would submit that the Trial Court has rightly considered the entire issue and granted the benefit of doubt and there is nothing for this Court to interfere with the said findings in an appeal against
6/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
acquittal.
perused the material records of the case.
complainant and in that relationship, the complainant, by way of hand loan on
account of the urgency pleaded by the accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. Of the said sum, Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the account of
the father of the accused and the balance was paid in cash. The said averments
are duly made. The complainant also examined himself as P.W.1. The subject
cheque was also marked. The signature on the cheque is not denied. The
statutory notice is also marked. The other ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are pleaded and evidence
is let in and accordingly the complainant has discharged his initial onus and
thus the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
7/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 1881 also arises in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the only question is
whether the accused has done enough to rebut the presumption so that the onus
further shifts on the complainant to adduce further proof regarding the loan.
complainant and by examining himself and marking Ex.D1, the plea is that the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is margin money for the purchase of the harvester by the father of the accused. From Ex.D1, it was pleaded on behalf of the accused
that it is true that the complainant transferred Rs.2,40,000/-, the Indian Bank had given Rs.13,40,000/-, and by including the Rs.2,40,000/-, the sum of Rs.15,70,000-/- was sent to the account of the complainant. It is also pleaded
that as of 05.03.2010, the entire amount payable to the complainant with reference to the purchase of the said vehicle was paid in full.
given by the complainant in the cross-examination :-
8/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
kPjp bjhif vjphp gzkhf vd;dplkpUe;J bgw;whh;/ kPjp bjhifia vjphp bgWk;nghJ mtUld; ahh ahh; ,Ue;jhh;fs; ; vd;W vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy/ vjphp kPjp bjhifia vd; fk;bgdpf;F te;J bgw;Wr; brd;whh;/ vg;nghJ bgw;w njjp vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy U/:6.10.000 /- j;ij ve;j njjpapy; th';fpdhh; vd;whh; 09/07/2010k; njjpf;Fs; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lhh;.
vd;bdd;d U:gha; nehl;Lf;fshf U/:6.10.000 /- j;ij bfhLj;njd; vd;why ; "hgfk ; ,y;iy vj;jid fl;Lfs; bfhLj;njd; vd;why; "hgfk ,y;iy. ehd; vjphpf;F gzk; ; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhy; jhd; vj;jid fl;Lfs; vd;bdd;d U:gha; nehl;Lfs; Fwpj;j tptuk; bjhpatpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. U/:6.10.000 /- bfhLg;gjw;F vj;jid ehl;fSf;F Kd;dhy; gzk; njit vd;W vjphp vd;dplk; Twpdhh; vd;why; mJ Fwpj;J "hgfk ,y;iy/ ;
projected that the transaction was the purchase of a vehicle and that the cheque
leaf was handed over at that time, and with reference to the amount transferred
in the bank account when plausible explanation is pleaded and Ex.D1 bank
statement is marked and taking into account the answers given by the complainant with reference to the cash loan, if the Trial Court concluded that,
to the level of preponderance of probability, the accused has rebutted the
presumption and that in the absence of any further proof from the complainant
regarding advancement of the loan, granted benefit of doubt to the accused, it 9/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022 cannot be said that the findings are perverse or an implausible view.
10.04.2015, the Trial Court recorded that part payment was already made and
further payment was to be made on or before 08.05.2015 without fail, and thereafter in two or three hearings also the matter was posted for further
payment. It is not clear as to who made the representation for the payment.
When the parties have gone into trial and contested the matter on merits, any attempt for settlement in between cannot conclusively prove the case of the complainant.
24.11.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
10/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
To
The Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpet.
11/12
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
Crl.A.No.1051 of 2022
24.11.2025
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act regarding the alleged Rs.8,50,000 hand loan.
Whether the Trial Court's acquittal based on benefit of doubt was perverse or an implausible view warranting appellate interference.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Thilaga
R.Sundarrajan
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
