M.Ganesan vs Jeyaraman @ Raja
2023 Latest Caselaw 3809 Mad

                                                                        CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 05.04.2023

                                                   CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                          CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

                     M.Ganesan                            ... Appellant/Complainant


                                                   Vs.


                     Jeyaraman @ Raja                          ... Respondent/Accused



                     PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to call for
                     the records pertaining to the Judgment in C.C.No.338 of 2011 on
                     the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
                     Thanjavur dated 27.02.2015 and set aside the same.


                                   For Appellant         : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer




                    1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                       CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015




                                                   JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment

passed in C.C.No.338 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thanjavur dated 27.02.2015, thereby

acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent

is an accused in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The crux of the complaint is that the respondent

borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for his family expenditure and

also to meet his business expenditure. Even after repeated

requests, the respondent failed to return the amount and finally, he

issued a cheque for the said sum on 24.02.2011. On the same day,

it was presented for collection and the same was returned

'dishonoured' for the reason that 'funds insufficient'. After causing

statutory notice, the appellant lodged the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

4.On the side of the appellant, he himself was examined

as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and on the side of the

respondent, he had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents

were marked.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial Court found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal.

6.The appellant raised the ground that the respondent

admitted the signature found in the cheque and also the issuance of

the cheque. Therefore, the appellant had discharged his initial

burden in order to prove the offence as contemplated under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unfortunately, the trial Court

dismissed the complaint on the ground that non-mentioning of the

date of the loan is fatal to the case of the appellant. Further, the

appellant also failed to obtain any security at the time of borrowal of

loan from the respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the materials available on record.

8.On perusal of the records revealed that the

respondent had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 in order to rebut the

presumption arising under Section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The specific stand of the respondent is that the

appellant was running chit, in which, the son of the respondent

subscribed and had taken a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Even after

repayment of the entire amount, the cheque which was given as

security by the respondent was not returned to him. It was a blank

signed cheque. The said cheque was issued as security 7 years

before the date of presentation. Therefore, the said cheque was not

issued for any legally enforceable debt.

9.That apart, while borrowing the loan, no documents

were received from the respondent as security. In fact, Ex.P.1 was

issued only after several months, and the appellant also did not

mention the date of borrowal. Therefore, the respondent

categorically rebutted the presumption as contemplated under

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

appellant failed to prove his case in the manner known to law.

Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent and this

Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the

Court below and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

                                                                    05.04.2023

                     NCC          : Yes/No
                     Index        : Yes/No
                     Internet     : Yes
                     ps



                     To

The Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level),

Thoothukudi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps

CRL.A.(MD).No.79 of 2015

05.04.2023

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