Dismissed¶37

G.Sunitha, F/A-38 Years v. Benjimi

Madras HC12 Aug 2025CRL A/224/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.A.No.224 of 2017, decided 12.08.2025 by D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.: appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act dismissed; acquittal upheld where the cash portion of the alleged Rs.5 Lakh loan was unexplained as to date, source and manner, Ex.P1 cheque showed different ink and handwriting, neither party produced bank statements, and the weakness of the accused's case cannot substitute for the complainant's proof; benefit of doubt held not perverse.

What did the court decide?

In a criminal complaint, the weakness of the case of the accused cannot be a ground for conviction; it is for the complainant to prove her version. ¶36

G.Sunitha, F/A-38 Years Vs Benjimi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court — on findings that he rebutted the presumption under Section 138 NI Act and was entitled to benefit of doubt — was unsustainable, such that the complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. ought to succeed. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The Trial Court's grant of benefit of doubt to the accused cannot be held to be an impossible view or a perverse view; consequently the appeal against acquittal fails.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

In a criminal complaint, the weakness of the case of the accused cannot be a ground for conviction; it is for the complainant to prove her version.

¶36

Key takeaways

Where part of the alleged loan is said to have been given through banking transactions, there was absolutely no explanation as to on what date, how and why the balance was handed over as cash — neither source nor manner of disbursement brought on record — and the Trial Court duly took this into account.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant (G.Sunitha) against the acquittal of the accused (Benjimi) of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam (C.C.No.1 of 2012, judgment dated 03.11.2016). The complainant alleged a Rs.5 Lakh loan for the accused's medical expenses — Rs.1,40,000/- by cheque and Rs.3,60,000/- in cash — repayable against a cheque dated 24.07.2011 which was dishonoured, with the demand notice dated 21.08.2011 drawing no reply. The Trial Court, noting that Ex.P1 bore different ink and handwriting, that the cheque was allegedly a security misused by the complainant, and that the source and manner of the cash disbursement were unexplained, held that the accused had rebutted the presumption and extended the benefit of doubt. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. held that in a criminal complaint the weakness of the accused's case cannot be a ground for conviction and it is for the complainant to prove her version; the acquittal was neither an impossible nor a perverse view. Appeal dismissed (12.08.2025).

¶1

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.08.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

G.Sunitha

.. Appellant

Vs.

Benjimi .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order in acquitting the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District, dated 03.11.2016 and convict and sentence him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and further order payment of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,.

¶12

For the Appellant : No Appearance

¶13

For the Respondent : Mr.S.Ambigapathi

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District, dated 03.11.2016 made in C.C.No.1 of 2012. By the said Judgment, the respondent / accused was acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶19

The parties are referred to as 'Complainant' and the 'Accused' as per the array in the Trial Court.

¶20

The case of the complainant is that for the purpose of medical expenses of the accused, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from the complainant. Of the said sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid through Cheque and a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was paid as a cash. In repayment of the loan, the accused issued a Cheque dated 24.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs. The Cheque returned 'dishonoured' and the complainant issued a demand notice on 21.08.2011 and after receipt of the same, neither any reply was sent nor the amount was paid and hence the complaint was filed. A sworn statement was recorded and the complaint was taken on file. Upon appearance and issuance of

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

¶24

copies, the accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to establish the charges, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked documents in Exs.P1 to P8. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of him.

¶25

The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. The Trial Court considered the conduct of the complainant. In a huge sum of Rs.5 Lakhs is said to have been advanced, it is not even the case of the complainant that the Cheque was issued on the date of advancement of loan. The said factor was kept in mind. The accused in his evidence has stated that only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/was obtained as loan from the complainant's husband, through Cheque and the same was also repaid through banking transactions. The Cheque which was given as a security was misused by the complainant. Coupled with the said evidence, the Trial Court also examined the Ex.P1 – Cheque, which is all filled up through different ink and handwriting and cumulatively considered all the three factors to hold that the accused has rebutted the presumption and in the absence of any further proof on behalf of the complainant, benefit of doubt has

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

¶29

to be given to the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶30

The appeal is filed on the ground that even the accused admits borrowal of a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, which is also part of the aforementioned Rs.5 Lakhs. The signature in Ex.P1 – Cheque is also admitted. When a demand notice was issued in Ex.P4 no reply was sent. Therefore, for the first time, suddenly in the cross examination, the accused raises a defense, as if only part of the money was borrowed and that too was repaid. In the absence of proof of any repayment, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the defence.

¶31

I have considered the said grounds raised on behalf of the appellant and heard Mr.Ambigapathi , the learned counsel for the respondent / accused.

¶32

Firstly, when part of the money is said to be given by way of banking transactions, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to on what date, how and why the rest of the loan amount was handed over as cash. Neither the source was explained nor the manner in which it was disbursed was also not

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.A.No.224 of 2017

¶36

brought on record. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all of the above. The important averment of the complainant that he has parted away with a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, without even any document in writing such as promissory note and even the Cheque was said to have been given subsequently. This apart, as per the complainant, he had only advanced a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- through Cheque. As per the accused, the borrowal was from the complainant's husband. Both of them did not produce the respective bank statements, to prove their versions. However, in a criminal complaint, the weakness of the case of the accused cannot be a ground for conviction and it is for the complainant to prove her version.

¶37

Therefore, the Trial Court granting the benefit of doubt to the accused cannot be held to be an impossible view or a perverse view and accordingly, this appeal against acquittal fails and is dismissed.

¶38

12.08.2025

¶39

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

Jer

¶41

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis