Ponnusamy Vs Karthikeyan

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 12.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, in C.C.No.74 of 2015.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.L.Mouli For Respondent : Not ready notice

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, dated 12.11.2019 made in C.C.No.74 of 2015. By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.A.No.47 of 2022

¶18

This is a private complaint filed by the appellant herein complaining

¶19

of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/for his business development and subsequently executed a muchalika in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the said sum with further interest at 12% per annum and upon execution of the muchalika got back the cheques and other pronotes which were given on the date of borrowal. Subsequently, in discharge of part of the above loan, the subject matter cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 30.07.2014 was issued. The cheque was presented by the complainant for collection, upon which it got dishonoured with the endorsement "Refer to Drawer". Thereafter, statutory notice was issued by the appellant and since no payment was made nor any reply was also received, the complaint was filed. After taking sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file and upon issue of summons and appearance of the accused, copies were furnished. The accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.A.No.47 of 2022

¶23

Court considered the case of the parties and found that the complainant has taken prevaricating stands in the statutory notice, complaint and evidence, and therefore disbelieved the case of the complainant and held that the complainant failed even to initially discharge his burden relating to legally enforceable debt and acquitted the accused. As against the same, the appeal was preferred.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that it is clear that the complainant has mentioned about the muchalika even in the complaint, when the accused has categorically executed a muchalika admitting his liability and thereafter issued the cheque, especially when the signatures in the cheque are not disputed, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act would come to the aid of the complainant and as such the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made and perused the material

¶26

records of the case.

¶27

It is to be seen that the complaint itself does not mention on what date the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the initial

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.A.No.47 of 2022

¶31

promissory note was executed and when the cheques were given to the complainant. It subsequently states that on 24.08.2014, the accused executed a muchalika by getting back the promissory notes and cheque agreeing to repay the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The said muchalika was also not produced and marked in the trial. In the absence of any further proof that the cheque was issued in part payment of the debt, the finding of the Trial Court that these matters were not categorically mentioned in the statutory notice and different versions are given, cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an impossible finding.

¶32

In view thereof, in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is unable to upset the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, finding no merits, the criminal appeal stands dismissed.

¶33

29.10.2025

¶34

cda Index : No Speaking Order

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.A.No.47 of 2022

¶38

To