Complainant appealed against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case alleging a Rs.10,00,000 cash loan secured by a cheque returned for insufficient funds. The court found the accused had rebutted the presumption via old-format cheque, unproduced promissory note and Sakthi Finance connections, upheld the benefit of doubt, 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.405 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015
N.S.Muthuveeran S/o.Sellandikandar ...Appellant Vs.
E.Dhachinamoorthy, S/o.Easwaran ...Respondent
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode and convict the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For Appellant : Ms.D.Sathya for M/s.Zeenath Begum For Respondent : Mr.John Alexander for Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Tiruchengode dated 22.04.2015 made in STC.No.32 of 2014. 1/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015
2/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015 3. Upon recording a sworn statement, the complaint was taken on
record and summons were issued to the respondent/accused and upon appearance and furnishing of copies, the respondent/accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the appellant/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Branch Manager of Salem District, Central Co-operative Bank was examined as P.W.2 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and the circumstances on record, the respondent/accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the respondent/accused examined the Assistant Manager, Salem District Central Co-operative Bank as D.W.1 and one M.Shanmugam as D.W.2 and Exhibits D1 to D6 were also marked. The Trial Court, considered the case of the parties and several circumstances, which were against the appellant/complainant including the fact that the cheque was an old cheque of the year 2004 not having any MICR code and the appellant/complainant being unable to produce any other supportive documents and the appellant/complainant being the counsel of the Sakthi Finance, where the respondent/accused borrowed the amount and when the appellant/complainant said to have been issued a notice for an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the year 2006 had chosen to advance a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as cash in the year 2010 and for all the circumstances, the 3/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015
Trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. As
against the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that once the
accused admits the signature in the cheque, the presumption is in favour of the appellant/complainant. The respondent/accused had not proved the fact that the cheque was issued only to Sakthi Finance. Even the Branch Manager of Sakthi Finance, who was examined as D.W.2 did not say so. As far as the cheque is concerned, the appellant/complainant has categorically stated that, it is the respondent/accused, who brought the cheque duly type-written and signed and handed over to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant cannot be found fault with for accepting an old cheque. The cheque issued was duly presented and it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. It is to be
noted that even though it is the case of the wife of the accused, who discharged loan to Sakthi Finance, they have not taken any steps to get the cheque returned from the said Finance. Thus, it would be clear that there is a long standing friendship between the respondent/accused and
4/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015 the appellant/complainant and believing the respondent/accused, the appellant/complainant had lent the amount by way of cash and when the cheque has been issued in favour of the appellant/complainant, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent/accused.
perused the materials available on record.
Councillor and that he was also an Advocate and in that capacity, he had 5/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015 also issued a legal notice for one Sakthi Finance to the wife of the
accused when she failed to repay the amount due to the Sakthi Finance. The appellant/complainant further triples up as a Financier when he pleads that he advanced the loan to the accused for interest at the rate of 1.5%.
appellant/complainant that a promissory note was executed and the appellant/complainant, being an Advocate, has not even chosen to produce the copy of the said alleged pro-note. Secondly, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration that the cheque was issued from the bank to the accused in the year 2004 and by the time borrowal was made
and the respondent/accused was said to have issued the cheque, new cheque formats with MICR code has come into force and it is shocking to plead that the appellant/complainant being an Advocate would accept such an old cheque format of the year 2010. Thirdly, it is further to be noted that the respondent/accused has duly cross-examined the complainant, whereunder the transactions with reference to the Sakthi Finance are admitted by the appellant/complainant. Further, the respondent/accused has also examined D.W.2 to further buttress his case
6/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015 and thus, the respondent/accused has rebutted the presumption to the level of preponderance of probability. In the absence of any further proof with reference to the advance of such a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Trial Court is right in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused.
28.10.2025
mp
NCC : Yes / No
To
7/8
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,
mp
Crl.A.No.405 of 2015
28.10.2025
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal under Section 138 NI Act should be reversed despite admitted cheque signature and statutory presumption.
Whether the accused rebutted the presumption regarding the Rs.10,00,000 borrowal to the level of preponderance of probability.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N.S.Muthuveeran
E.Dhachinamoorthy
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
