Madras High Court
Mr.B.Sakthivel vs Mr.R.Annaji on 4 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL A No. 682 of 2012
AND
CRL A NO. 683 OF 2012
Mr.B.Sakthivel
..Appellant in both
Crl.A.'s
Vs
Mr.R.Annaji
..Respondent in both
Crl.A.'s
Prayer in Crl.A.No.682 of 2012: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment of acquittal ordered by
the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur in S.T.C.No.99/2011 dated
07.08.2012.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.683 of 2012: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment of acquittal ordered by
the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur in S.T.C.No.193/2011 dated
07.08.2012.
For Appellant in Mr.M.Yogeshwaran
both Crl.A.'s: for Mr.D.Padmanabhan
For Respondent in Mr.C.Prabakaran
both Crl.A.'s:
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )
CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Both these Criminal Appeals are between the same parties and as such, they are taken up and disposed of together.
2. Crl.A.No.682 of 2012 is filed as against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur dated 07.08.2012 made in S.T.C. No.99 of 2011 thereby acquitting the accused of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments act. Crl.A.No.683 of 2012 is filed as against the judgment made on the same day i.e., 07.08.2012 made in S.T.C.No.193 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur, whereby also the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant and the accused are friends being the agents of Life Insurance Corporation of India. On account of the acquaintance, the accused approached for a hand loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees only) on 20.04.2010 and promised to return the amount in three months time. On the same day, the complainant advanced the amount by way of a cheque.
4. Even on the date of receiving the cheque from the complainant, the accused issued a post dated cheque for repayment of the said sum of __________ Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012 Rs.1,00,000/- by dating the cheque as 30.07.2010. Again on 15.05.2010, the accused approached for a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) for payment to his contractor who constructed a house in Hosur. That amount was also paid by the complainant on 20.05.2010. On receipt of the said amount, the accused issued another cheque dated 20.08.2010 for repayment of the same.
5. The complainant deposited both the cheques for collection on 23.08.2010 but was returned as dishonoured cheque with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice. The accused received the same but failed to make payment and as such the private complaints were filed.
6. As a matter of fact, both the complaints were filed with an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, it is mentioned that after the issuance of statutory notice, the accused approached the complainant and made part payment of a sum of Rs.55,000/-. After condoning the delay and after recording sworn statement, the complaints were taken on file. Upon issuing the summons and furnishing the copies to the accused, the accused denied the allegations and stood the trial.
7. In order to bring home the charge in both cases, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. Upon being __________ Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012 questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false.
8. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW1 and his wife was examined as DW2. The trial Court considered the case of the parties. The trial court considered the fact that the complainant though had stated in the condone delay application, did not disclosed the same in detail in the complaint with reference to the receipt of a sum of Rs.55,000/-.
9. Even with reference to Rs.55,000/-, though the complainant initially had admitted only Rs.55,000/- later in the cross examination he admitted receipt of a total sum of Rs.85,000/-. Though the complainant had stated that the entire sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was due and in some portion of his evidence, he has stated that amounts were paid towards the interest, since the complainant himself did not stick to his versions one way or the other, the trial Court held that by the said cross examination, the accused had rebutted the presumption and in the absence of clear cut proof with reference to the advancement of the said sum, especially when the accused had put forth the case that with reference to some other transaction, the cheques were issued as security, and the same is being misused, the trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused. As against which, the appeals are filed.
__________ Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
10. Heard, Mr. M.Yogeshwaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.D.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the cases.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking this court through the material evidences on record would submit that in this case, the first finding of the trial court as if the complainant never received any further amount cannot be correct as in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the private complaint, it is categorically mentioned that the accused approached the complainant and paid a sum of Rs.55,000/-. Though, the complainant had initially denied the further payment of Rs.30,000/- as cash, it can be seen that the same was paid belatedly after the filing of the condone delay application and as such, the complainant had admitted fairly about the payment of the said sum of Rs.30,000/-.
12. In any event, it can be seen that the same would be a circumstance against the accused also when the accused had stated that he had repaid a sum of Rs.85,000/-, nothing else is brought forth on record by the accused in order to prove that the said sum is paid with reference to some other transaction and not with reference to the hand loan.
__________ Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
13. When the complainant has marked the cheques and the signature is not denied, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would arise in favour of the complainant. The accused, except for examining himself and his wife, has not done anything to disprove the fact that he had borrowed the amount. The cheque was issued only in discharge of the said liability.
14. As a matter of fact, it is categorically stated by the complainant that the first payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by way of a cheque. The second transaction was paid by way of cash. Considering the friendship between the parties, which is also not denied by the accused side, the trial court ought to have believed the version of the complainant and ought to have convicted the accused.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondent/accused would submit that the accused and complainant were friends and there were other transactions between the parties. It can be seen that the complainant has helped the accused with reference to buying of policies and the manner in which the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Mani and the cheques were given only as a security in respect thereof, was rightly taken into account by the trial court and the accused is acquitted.
__________ Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
16. The complainant did not whisper anything about the receipt of the payment of Rs.55,000/- or the other payment of Rs.30,000/- in the complaint. Further, in the cross examination the complainant has made several inconsistent and prevaricating statements and if the cross examination of PW1 is read in full, it would throw doubt on the very case of the complainant. Therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused.
17. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed money on two occasions and in discharge of the said liability, issued both the cheques and the cheques upon being presented for collection, return dishonoured and hence the case.
18. In this regard, firstly, though it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application that the complainant had on three dates was paid a total sum of Rs.55,000/- and thereafter, the complainant was approaching him for further payment, in the cross examination the complainant stated a different version that the Rs.55,000/- is meant towards interest and on the next line, the complainant admits that it was for the advancement of the loan and not for interest. The said answers in the cross examination is extracted here under:-
ehd; ,e;j tHf;fpy; vjphpaplkpUe;J U:/55 Mapuk;
th';fp ,Uf;fpnwd; mJ tl;of;fhd gzkhFk;/ ,e;j gzk; vjphpf;F ifkhj;jhfj;jhd; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/ tl;of;fhf bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ __________ Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012
19. Similarly, when it is the case of the accused that he has paid a total sum of Rs.85,000/-, in the proof affidavit which is admittedly filed only after the date of payment, the complainant has not stated anything about the receipt of payment. In the cross examination, initially he has admitted the receipt of Rs.55,000/-, but however denied the receipt of further payment of Rs.30,000/- and the said answer is extracted here under:
ehd; U:/55 Mapuk; bjhifnahL nkYk; U:/30 Mapuk; gzkhf bgw;Wf;bfhz;Ls;nsd; vd;why; rhpay;y/
20. But, however as the cross examination proceeded further, the complainant ultimately admitted the total sum of Rs.85,000/- and his answer is as follows:-
th';fpa U:/1 yl;rj;jpy; bfhLj;j bjhif U:/85 Mapuk; nghf kPjp U:/15 Mapuk; bfhLj;j vjphp jw;nghJk; jahuhf ,Uf;fpwhh; vd;why; vjphp vd;dplk; th';fpa bjhif U:/3 yl;rk; MFk;/ mjpy; U:/85 Mapuk; jhd; jpUg;gpf;bfhLj;Js;shh;/
21. In the said background, the case of the accused is that one Mani was working in the concern by name M/s.Janigo and they have purchased materials from the said concern which were ultimately not accepted by the customers and in that regard, the accused suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though the complainant initially denied knowledge about the same, in the same breath he will turn around and submits that the accused had only profited in the __________ Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012 transaction and the said answers in the cross examination is extracted here under:-
mth; bgah; kzpjhd;/ b$dpf;;a{ epWtdj;jpy;
bghUl;fis th';fp vjphp jd;
thof;ifahsh;fSf;F bfhLj;J me;j
bghUl;fs; rhpapy;iy vd;W thof;ifahsh;fs;
vjphpaplk; jpUk;gbfhLj;jjhft[k; vjphpf;F U:/1 yl;rk; ec&;lk; Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; mJ Fwpj;J vdf;F bjhpahJ/ mjpy; mth; yhgk;
mile;Js;shh;/
22. Similarly, he further admitted that Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the accused through the said Mani and in respect thereof, the accused had only issued one cheque and not three cheques. The said answers in the cross examination are extracted here under:-
vjphpf;F kzp K:ykhf U:/1 yl;rk; bfhLj;jJ cz;ik/ mJ 20/4/2010y; bfhLf;fg;gl;ljhFk;/ vjphp U:/1 yl;rk; th';fpf;bfhz;L ehd; 3 fhnrhiyfis ehd; vjphpaplk; th';fpndd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ 1 fhnrhiy jhd; vjphp bfhLj;jhh;/ mth; 3 fhnrhiyfs; bfhLj;jhh;
vd;Wk; mjd; nghpy; jhd; ehd; kw;bwhU
tHf;fpy; U:/2 yl;rk; U:gha;f;F me;j
fhnrhiyapd; mog;gilapy; nghl;Ls;nsd;
vd;why; rhpay;y/
23. Thus, on reading of the cross examination in total, the evidence of the complainant has all along between a yes and no and in the teeth of the said evidence, the trial court held that the presumption has been rebutted and the version of the accused seems probable and acquitted the accused. The findings __________ Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012 of the trial Court cannot be held to be a perverse finding or an implausible view so has to be upturned in an appeal against acquittal.
24. Accordingly, finding no merits, these appeals stand dismissed.
04-11-2025 Neutral Citation: No mpl __________ Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm ) CRL A Nos. 682 and 683 of 2012 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
mpl CRL A No. 682 of 2012 AND CRL A NO. 683 OF 2012 04-11-2025 __________ Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )