Karnan Vs N.G.Mohan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

Karnan Vs N.G.Mohan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal allowed: the acquittal judgment dated 07.10.2020 in S.T.C.No.30 of 2016 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem) is set aside and the case remanded to the trial Court, which is to issue notice, ensure presence of appellant and respondent, hear the case afresh from the stage of arguments, decide on its own merits and complete the process within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent on the strength of DW2's evidence and Exs.D1-D4 (that he was not at Sri Raja Lodge / not available in Salem on 07.09.2014), given that Salem-Coimbatore involves only about three hours' travel and the respondent's reply notice (Ex.P5) reflects a different admitted position. +1 more

Court's answer

The duration between Salem and Coimbatore is only three hours' travel; a person visiting either Salem or Coimbatore on a particular day does not need to be completely away for 24 hours.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent took a prevaricated stand: per reply notice Ex.P5 he handed over the signed blank cheque, promissory note and Rs.20/- stamp paper (via Sambu @ Shanmugam), while at trial he claimed he was in Coimbatore on 07.09.2014 and 08.09.2014. Had he examined Sambu @ Shanmugam to prove how the signed blank instruments reached the appellant, it might have been taken as plausible explanation and probabilization of defence.

Key takeaways

The trial Court's reliance on DW2's evidence and Exs.D1 to D4, which is contrary to Ex.P5 (the respondent's admitted position), and dismissal of the complaint on that basis is improper, perverse and not sustainable.ratio¶44
The judgment dated 07.10.2020 in STC.No.30 of 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem is set aside and the case in STC.No.30 of 2016 is remanded back to the trial Court.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras, single Judge (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), 15.04.2025, Crl.A.No.707 of 2022: Criminal appeal (prayer invoking S.378, Criminal Procedure Code, as printed) by complainant Karnan against the acquittal of respondent N.G. Mohan (Proprietor, K V MATS, Salem) in S.T.C.No.30 of 2016 under S.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem. Complainant's case: respondent borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- hand loan on 07.09.2014 and issued post-dated cheque No.362505 (Ex.P1) dated 08.10.2014 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Seelanaikenpatti Branch; on presentation on 09.10.2014 it was returned 'Funds Insufficient', intimated 13.10.2014; statutory notice Ex.P3 dated 16.10.2014; reply Ex.P5 dated 26.10.2014. Respondent's defence shifted: per reply notice, he handed a signed blank cheque, promissory note and Rs.20/- stamp paper (through Sambu @ Shanmugam, saloon owner, next to whose shop he ran a mat shop) for arranging a Rs.30,000/- loan which was never arranged; at trial, that he was staying at Sri Raja Lodge, Coimbatore on 07.09.2014 and 08.09.2014 (DW2, Manager, and Exs.D1-D4). The Court found the respondent's stand prevaricated and his failure to examine Sambu @ Shanmugam fatal to probabilising the defence; observed Salem-Coimbatore is only about three hours' travel so a visit to either city does not require 24-hour absence; held the trial Court's reliance on DW2/Exs.D1-D4, contrary to Ex.P5 (the respondent's admitted position), improper, perverse and unsustainable; set aside the judgment dated 07.10.2020 and remanded the case to the trial Court to issue notices, ensure the parties' presence, hear it afresh from the stage of arguments and decide it on merits within three months of their appearance.