Dismissed¶81

P.Ganesan v. Dollors Pounds Trading School of Academy

Madras HC20 Nov 2025CRL A/944/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J., 20-11-2025) dismisses the complainant's CRL A No. 944 of 2022 appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act (STC.No.142 of 2011, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem): the accused rebutted the cheque presumption to the preponderance-of-probability standard through passport stamps (Ex.D1) placing him in Singapore on the relevant date; the acquittal is held not perverse.

What did the court decide?

When the complainant has produced the cheque and proved the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he discharges the initial onus, and the burden lies on the respondent / accused to rebut the presumption. ¶60

P.Ganesan Vs Dollors Pounds Trading School of Academy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court ought not to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused only based on Ex.D1 alone, given that the entire passport was not marked and the Immigration Officer was not examined. +2 more

¶47

Court's answer

On a perusal of Ex.D1, the stamping of immigration and the stamping of departure are clearly contained in the same page, and it is clear that during the relevant date the accused was in Singapore.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

¶60

Key takeaways

As far as rebutting the presumption is concerned, the standard of proof expected of the accused is only preponderance of probability and not proof beyond doubt.ratio¶70
To a reasonable extent the accused has produced the document (Ex.D1 passport) and has created an impression that he was in Singapore; the same has to be accepted.ratio¶72
Even if the complainant contends that the stamping may be on a different page, no such question was put forth at the time of trial, and when the original passport was produced for verification, any different entry should have been pointed out at the time of marking itself.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant (P.Ganesan) against the judgment dated 19.06.2017 of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem in STC.No.142 of 2011 acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged a hand loan of Rs.4,40,000/- obtained on 02.09.2010, discharged by two cheques dated 02.12.2010 (Rs.2,70,000/-) and 15.12.2010 (Rs.1,70,000/-), dishonoured with the endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. The trial Court acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt, relying on Ex.D1 (pages of the accused's passport) showing that he left for Singapore on 27.08.2010 and returned only on 18.09.2010. Held: when the complainant produces the cheque and proves the ingredients of Section 138, the initial onus stands discharged and the burden lies on the accused to rebut the presumption; the standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond doubt; the immigration and departure stamps in Ex.D1 are contained in the same page, showing the accused was in Singapore on the relevant date; the non-marking of all passport pages and the non-examination of the Immigration Officer do not defeat the rebuttal, and no question suggesting stamps on different pages was put forth at trial; the acquittal is therefore neither a perverse nor an impossible finding. Criminal Appeal dismissed. (An earlier appeal, Crl.A.No.110 of 2017, had been held non est by a full bench judgment; parties were transposed and the revision converted into this appeal.)

¶1

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

P.Ganesan

Appellant(s)

Dollors Pounds Trading School of Academy, By its Prop.J.Vijayabharath, S/o. Jayabalachandra Mouli, No.209, 9th Street, Kothari Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089.

¶11

2.J.Vijayabharth

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the Judgement passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem in STC.No. 142 of 2011 dated 19.06.2017 by allowing this Appeal.

¶14

For Appellant(s): M/s.L.Rajendran

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Madhusudnanan

¶16

1 of 8

¶17

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

¶18

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgement dated 19.06.2017 in

¶21

STC.No.142 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.

¶22

It is to be noted here that earlier, an appeal was filed in

¶23

Crl.A.No.110 of 2017 and by virtue of the full bench judgment, the appellate judgement was held to be non est and once again the parties are transposed and this criminal revision originally filed as against the appellate judgment was

¶24

again converted into one as criminal appeal. Accordingly, now Mr.P.Ganesan,

¶25

the complainant is the appellant. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaining an

¶26

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶27

The case of the complainant is that on 02.09.2010, the accused

¶28

approached the complainant and obtained a hand loan for his business and

¶29

family purposes to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/-. In discharge of the said liability,

¶30

the accused on the same day issued two cheques i.e., the first cheque dated

¶31

2 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶34

02.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and another cheque dated 15.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. Upon the cheques being presented, it came dishonoured with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued. Thereafter, neither any payment was made nor any reply notice was issued. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. Upon recording the sworn statement, the case was taken on file. Upon issue of summons, furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 were marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating materials and evidence on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and on behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. The trial Court considered the case of the parties and considered Ex.D1, a copy of the passport. From the said document, the trial Court concluded that the accused had left for Singapore on 27.08.2010 and returned only on 18.09.2010 and therefore, the complainant's case that the accused approached him on 02.09.2010 and got the loan could not have been possible

¶35

3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶38

and therefore, in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, raises a

¶39

doubt with reference to the allegation of the complainant and as such, gave the

¶40

benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused.

¶41

Mr.L.Rajendran , the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶42

appellant would submit that firstly, in this case, the entire passport is not

¶43

marked. The accused after leaving for Singapore could have also come back and

¶44

gone back to Singapore in the meanwhile. If only the entire passport is produced

¶45

and marked, all the pages can be inspected and sometimes it is possible that the immigration stamp is on a different page also. Neither the Immigration Officer

¶46

was examined to conclusively point out that the accused was only in Singapore

¶47

on the relevant date. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have given the benefit of doubt, only based on Ex.D1 alone. The learned Counsel would further submit that when the complainant has produced the cheque and the explanation

¶48

that is given by the accused with reference to the signature in the cheque is

¶49

absolutely unbelievable, the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.

¶50

4 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶53

Mr.S.Madhusudhanan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

¶54

the respondent / accused would submit that it is a specific case of the complainant that the accused borrowed the amount on 02.09.2010. The entire

¶55

passport was produced before the trial Court and only the photocopies of the relevant pages alone were marked after comparison. The relevant page clearly mentions the date of immigration into Singapore and the date of departure. Both

¶56

the stamps are clearly available in the relevant pages that are marked. Therefore, the complainant was very much present and the learned Counsel also cross examined the witness in detail. Nothing has been brought out to doubt the said entries. It is only suggested that the entire passport itself is forged and fabricated. The trial Court had also verified the passport and thereafter only the finding is given.

¶57

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

¶58

perused the material records of the case.

¶59

When the complainant has produced the cheque and proved the

¶60

ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he discharges the 5 of 8

¶61

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

¶62

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶63

initial onus and the burden lies on the respondent / accused to rebut the

¶64

presumption. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused examined himself

¶65

as D.W.1 and has also cross examined the complainant and produced Ex.D1 his

¶66

passport. The relevant pages are marked as exhibit. On a perusal thereof, the stamping of immigration and the stamping of departure are clearly contained in

¶67

the same page and it is clear that during the relevant date, the accused was in

¶68

Singapore. Even if the complainant contends that it may be possible that the stamping is on a different page, then at the time of trial, no such question was

¶69

put forth and when the original passport was produced for verification, at that time of marking itself the different entry if any, should have been pointed out.

¶70

With reference to the argument that the Immigration Officer should have been examined, as far as the rebutting the presumption is concerned, the standard of proof that is expected of the accused is only preponderance of probability and

¶71

not proof beyond doubt. To a reasonable extent the accused has produced the

¶72

document and has created an impression that he was in Singapore, the same has

¶73

to be accepted. D.W.1 has admitted that there are more pages to the passport and

¶74

he has not fully marked all the pages. But when the immigration seal and the

¶75

6 of 8

¶76

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

¶77

CRL A No. 944 of 2022

¶78

departure seal is in the same page and does not raise any serious doubt over the

¶79

case of the accused. Under the said circumstances, when the evidence on record as presented by the accused, raises a reasonable doubt on the case of the complainant, the finding of the trial Court in giving the benefit of doubt to the

¶80

accused cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an impossible finding.

¶81

Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶82

20-11-2025

¶83

veda

¶84

Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

¶85

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem. 2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Madras.