Dismissed¶29

Balasubramanian v. Anbarasan

Madras HC18 Jul 2025CRL A/989/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.A.No.989 of 2025 (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., 18.07.2025): criminal appeal under S.378 Cr.P.C. against acquittal under S.138 NI Act in C.C.No.452/2018 (JM No.II, Pollachi) dismissed. Alleged loan of Rs.2,40,000/- unproved — only the cheque produced; P.W.1 admitted loan not accounted in income tax returns; accused denied signature; prior S.138 complaint by appellant's father against accused's wife showed security-cheque pattern; presumption rebutted; no legally enforceable debt proved; acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the records, the Court found that the respondent did not borrow any amount from the appellant; except the cheque, the appellant produced no other document to show that the respondent borrowed the said amount. ¶24

Balasubramanian Vs Anbarasan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in C.C.No.452 of 2018 suffered from any illegality or infirmity and whether the criminal appeal ought to be allowed. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The trial court rightly acquitted the respondent, and this Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

¶24

Key takeaways

In the cross-examination of P.W.1 (the appellant/complainant), he categorically admitted that he did not account the loan amount in his income tax returns.ratio¶24
The appellant's father had already filed a Section 138 NI Act complaint against the respondent's wife, showing that the appellant and his father were in the habit of filing such complaints with cheques already issued for security purposes.ratio¶24
The respondent had categorically rebutted the presumption, and the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act (C.C.No.452 of 2018, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi) — Complainant/appellant alleged loan of Rs.2,40,000/- on 13.06.2018 repaid by a cheque dated 30.07.2018 returned dishonoured for 'Funds insufficient'; complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, while the accused adduced no evidence — Court found that except the cheque no document proved the borrowing; P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that the loan was not accounted in his income tax returns; the accused denied the cheque signature; the appellant's father had earlier filed a Section 138 complaint against the accused's wife, indicating a practice of using security cheques — Presumption held categorically rebutted and the cheque not proved to be towards a legally enforceable debt — Trial court's acquittal upheld as free from illegality or infirmity; appeal dismissed (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., 18.07.2025).

¶1

Crl.A.No.989 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.989 of 2025

¶7

Balasubramanian ...Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Anbarasan ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of acquittal in C.C.No.452 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi dated 06.02.2025.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.A.Esakipandy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.R.Murugabharathi

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.A.No.989 of 2025

¶17

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 06.02.2025 made in C.C.No.452 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, thereby acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶18

The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused in the complaint lodged by the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, alleging that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- from the appellant on 13.06.2018. In order to repay the said amount, the respondent had issued a cheque on 30.07.2018. It was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds insufficient”. After causing statutory notice, the appellant filed a complaint and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.452/2018.

¶19

On the side of the appellant he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the respondent no one was examined and no documents were marked.. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.A.No.989 of 2025

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent never denied his signature found in the cheque and also the issuance of cheque. Further, the respondent had also failed to rebut the presumption. Even then, the trial Court has mechanically acquitted the respondent.

¶24

On perusal of the records it is revealed that the respondent did not borrow any amount from the appellant. Except the cheque, the appellant did not produce any other document to show that the respondent borrowed the said amount. The specific defence taken by the respondent was that the appellant had no income to lend such a huge amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he categorically admitted that he did not account the loan amount in his income tax returns. Further, the respondent also denied the signature found in the cheque. That apart, the appellant's father had already filed a complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act as against the respondent's wife. It shows that the appellant and his father were in the habit of filing complaints under Section 138 of NI Act with the cheque which was already issued for security purpose. Therefore, the respondent has

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.A.No.989 of 2025

¶28

categorically rebutted the presumption and even then the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. Hence the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent and this Court finds no illegality of infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶29