Madras High Court
Avr.Sathishkumar vs M.Pushparajan on 20 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
AVR.Sathishkumar .. Appellant
Vs
M.Pushparajan .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of CRPC, to set aside the
judgment in Crl.A.No.163 of 2016 dated 10.01.2019 by learned 3rd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai by reversing the judgment
passed by learned Fast Track Court III (Metropolitan Magistrate),
Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.51 of 2012 dated 12.05.2016.
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Nagarajan
For the Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the learned 3rd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.163 of 2016
dated 10.01.2019, in and by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted
the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, for which he was convicted by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
2. Heard Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned counsel for the appellant. In spite
of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent / accused.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that the learned Appellate Judge acquitted the respondent / accused
on the ground that the complainant did not produce proof for advancing
the loan of Rs.8 lakhs. This, according to the learned counsel for the
complainant is erroneous, since there is presumption under Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel would further submit that
the contention of the accused is that he has issued a blank cheque in
respect of a borrowal of some other loan to the third party. He has failed to
prove the same. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the defence and
once the complainant has duly presented the cheque, issued the demand
notice and especially when there is no reply notice on behalf of the
accused, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and findings of the
Appellate Court are unsustainable.
4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant. Perused the material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the
finding of the learned Appellate Court that the complainant has to prove
the handing over of the said sum, may not be sustainable especially when
the accused has neither pleaded by sending a reply notice nor filed any 313
statement to the effect of disputing wherewithal of the complainant to
advance the loan amount. But, however, that alone is not the reason
mentioned for acquittal by the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower
Appellate Court considered the facts that firstly, even according to the
complainant, this loan amount was given to a third person, who was a
friend of his relative and the loan amount is given as cash. As per the
evidence of the complainant itself, no other document in the nature of a
promissory note nor any other confirmation was taken from the third party
at the time of advancing of loan.
6. The Appellate Court considered the further evidence of the
complainant that he did not remember the exact date of advancement of the
loan. The complainant did not know the exact address of the accused but
only was able to tell the name of the village alone. He did not remember the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
phone number and other details of the respondent / accused. The Appellate
Court further took into consideration the admission of the complainant that
the accused issued a blank cheque with only his signature and only his
nephew, one Mohan filled up all other details. Whereas, the pleading in the
complaint is that in the month of September, 2011, for repayment of the
cheque, the accused issued a postdate cheque dated 11.10.2011. Therefore,
the absence of this crucial pleading that the cheque was handed over as
blank cheque with authority to the complainant to fill up the cheque, either
in the complaint filed by the complainant or in the chief examination, was
also considered by the Appellate Court and taking all these factors
cumulatively, the Appellate Court has held that there is an iota of doubt in
the case of the complainant and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of
doubt.
7. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Appellate court is
a possible view and this Court in the appeal against the acquittal cannot
upturn such a finding where the view of the Appellate court is a possible
view.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
8. Therefore, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Index : yes/no 20.06.2022
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
drm
To
1. The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The Fast Track Court III (Metropolitan Magistrate)
Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
drm
Crl.A.No.740 of 2019
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
