Madras High Court
Mookaiah vs M.Iyyappan on 24 February, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.87 and 95 of 2022
Crl.A.(MD).No.87 of 2022
Mookaiah ...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
M.Iyyappan ...Respondent/Accused
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned
judgment dated 01.03.2021 made in C.C.No.257 of 2013 on the file of
the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, acquitting the
Respondent/Accused and set aside the same.
Crl.A.(MD).No.95 of 2022
Mookaiah ...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
M.Iyyappan ...Respondent/Accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal
Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned
judgment dated 01.03.2021 made in C.C.No.258 of 2013 on the file of
the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, acquitting the
Respondent/Accused and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Kumar
(In both cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeals have been filed challenging the impugned
judgments dated 01.03.2021 made in C.C.Nos.257 and 258 of 2013 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, thereby, dismissing
the complaints lodged by the appellant herein for the offences punishable
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. In both the Criminal Appeals, the appellant is the same and the
respondent is the same. Both the cheques were issued in same
transaction and though separate complaints were made, this Court is
passing common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent on so many
occasions approached him and sought for loan. Accordingly, the
appellant had lent loan to the respondent for sums of Rs.1,00,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/-. In order to repay the same, the respondent issued two
cheques. Both the cheques were presented for collection and the same
were returned dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After
passing statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the appellant lodged complaints.
4. On the side of the appellant, he examined himself as PW-1 in
both the complaints and marked exhibits P-1 to P-6 and P-1 to P-5
respectively. On the side of the respondent, he examined himself as
DW-1 and marked exhibits D-1 to D-16 in both the cases. On perusal of
oral evidence and material evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the
respondent and dismissed the complaints.
5. On perusal of the records, it revealed that the appellant and the
respondent are close relatives. The respondent issued the cheques to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
develop his property into house sites. Though the appellant stated in his
complaints that he had lent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on one occasion and
another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on another occasion and on receipt of the
same, the respondent assured that he will return the same within a period
of five months and ten months, however, in the cross-examination of
PW-1, he stated that the alleged money was paid to the respondent to
purchase the land in the Village.
6. That apart, the appellant obtained a power of attorney deed from
the respondent on 08.08.2005 for the purpose of developing his property.
The certified copy of the power of attorney deed was marked by the
respondent. In fact, the appellant also admitted that the land of the
respondent has been sold to fifteen persons in the month of August 2007,
the dates on which it is alleged that the respondent obtained loan from
the appellant. He sold 15 plots belonged to the respondent even before
the date of borrowal. In fact, the respondent lodged complaint on
29.12.2007 before the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station
alleging that the appellant cheated the respondent and he was enquired
by the police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5
7. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not believable and the
appellant suppressed the material fact that before the issuance of alleged
cheques, the respondent executed power of attorney in favour of the
appellant to develop and sell the property. Thus, it is clear that the
alleged cheques are not issued for legal enforcement and as such, the
complainant failed to prove his case. Therefore, the Court below rightly
dismissed the complaints and acquitted the respondent. This Court finds
no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
24.02.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Lm
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lm
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.87 and 95 of 2022
24.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
