Appeal against acquittal for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The complainant gave inconsistent versions about whether Rs.5 lakh was advanced at once or in instalments, rebutting the statutory presumption without further evidence. The High Court held the acquittal was not perverse 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.84 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2022
P. Rajasekar .. Appellant
Versus
P. Karthikeyan .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to set aside the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed in S.T.C.No.49 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial level), Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr. G. Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr. K. Balu
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruvannamalai, dated 24.11.2021 in STC No.49 of 2016.
for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
1/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
3.
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
loan and on 02.01.2014 the complainant advanced the hand loan and in repayment thereof, the accused issued a post-dated cheque on the same day by dating the cheque as 12.02.2014 for the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Upon the same being presented for collection, the same return dishonoured with the endorsement “referred to drawer”. Thereafter, statutory notice was issued and since no reply was issued and no payment was also made, the complaint was
filed. Subsequently, upon recording of sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file and summons was issued to the accused and copies were furnished. Upon questioning, the accused denied the allegation and stood trial. In order to bring home the allegations, the complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
2/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
5.
considering the fact that the complainant took prevaricating stands in the original complaint as well as in the chief examination and in the cross examination, disbelieved the case of the complainant with reference to the liability and held that the case of the accused be probable and acquitted the accused as against which, the appeal is filed.
appellant.
3/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
cheque was issued only as a security in respect of the same. To prove the same, the accused has not let in any evidence. The suggestions that were made by the accused in the cross examination of the complainant are denied by the complainant. Therefore, once the cheque is presented and the accused also admits his signature in the cheque, the presumption operates in favour of the complainant and the trial court ought to have convicted the complainant. The trial court also omitted to consider that the accused did not even issue any reply notice to the statutory notice which also adds weightage to the claim of the complainant. Merely on a hyper technical ground, the complainant is nonsuited and therefore, this court should interfere in the case.
4/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
perused the judgment of the trial Court and other material records of the case.
5/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an impossible view. In an appeal against acquittal, the same cannot be upturned and the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In view thereof, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
29.10.2025
srm Neutral citation : Yes/No
6/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
To
7/8
Crl.A.No.84 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
srm
Judgment in Crl.A. No. 84 of 2022
29.10.2025
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case was perverse given the complainant's prevaricating stands on the advancement of the loan.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Rajasekar
P. Karthikeyan
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
