Complainant appealed acquittal in a cheque dishonour case involving Rs.25,00,000. The court found the complainant failed to show how the loan was paid, no loan documents existed, the cheque was issued four years later amid a disputed property sale, and presumptions stood rebutted. Appeal dismissed.
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.780 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
D.Prakash
... Appellant
Vs.
K.Bakthavachalam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the judgment made in S.T.C.No.2812 of 2022 dated 06.07.2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai-3.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ramkumar
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the judgment
dated 06.07.2024 p assed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai, in S.T.C.No.2812 of 2022, thereby acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”).
Page 1 of 6
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
2 . The appellant is the complainant and he lodged complaint as against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- o n 10.08.2018 and in order to repay the said amount, he issued a cheque for the said sum. The said cheque was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. After causing statutory notice, the appellant filed the complaint. The trial Court had taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by the appellant in S.T.C.No.2812 of 2022.
3 . On the side of the appellant, he had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined and marked one document as Ex.D.1. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
Page 2 of 6
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
4 . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The respondent did not deny his signature found in the cheque and issuance of the cheque. Even then, the trial Court failed to convict the respondent herein. In fact, on receipt of the statutory notice, the respondent did not even send any reply. Therefore, he failed to rebut the presumption arose under Sections 118 & 139 of the NI Act.
5 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court.
Page 3 of 6
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he made statement that his property was sold out in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,54,00,000/-. However, the appellant failed to pay the balance sale consideration. When the respondent insisted for balance sale consideration, the appellant informed that there was due to the corporation for which, he received the cheque from the respondent. Subsequently, the said cheque was misused by the appellant. The respondent sold out the entire property and he did not borrow any amount that too from the appellant. No prudent person would lend such a huge amount that too without any security.
Page 4 of 6
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
NI Act. Further, the appellant failed to prove his case in the manner known to law, after rebuttal. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
passed by the trial Court and the present appeal fails.
03.07.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-2, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.
Page 5 of 6
Crl.A.No.780 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. rts
Crl.A.No. 780 of 2025
03.07.2025
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal under Section 138 NI Act was infirm given the rebuttal of presumptions and lack of proof of the loan transaction.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
D.Prakash
K.Bakthavachalam
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
