Madras High Court
Bennet vs K.A.A.M.Veluthas on 26 April, 2023
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
Bennet ... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
K.A.A.M.Veluthas ... Respondent/Accused
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to call for
the records in C.C.No.185 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court (Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi
District and set aside the Judgment, dated 10.03.2014 and punish
the accused in accordance with law.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.D.Saravanan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the order of
acquittal passed in C.C.No.185 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court (Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District, dated 10.03.2014, thereby dismissing the
complaint and 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 the accused.
3. The crux of the complaint is that the respondent
purchased timber from the appellant on a credit basis. In order to
repay the part amount, the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- on 13.10.2005. The said cheque was presented for
collection and the same was returned 'dishonoured' for the reason
'funds insufficient'. After causing statutory notice, the appellant
initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
4.On the side of the appellant, he himself was examined
as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and on the side of the
respondent, he had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked Ex.D.1
to Ex.D.5.
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 and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Appeal.
6.The appellant raised the ground that the respondent
had admitted the business transaction between them. As per the
bills of the year 2009, the respondent purchased timbers from the
appellant worth about Rs.29,64,452/-. In order to repay part of the
amount, the respondent issued a cheque. In fact, the respondent
also admitted the signature found in the cheque and issuance of
cheque and therefore, the appellant discharged his initial burden as
contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
However, the respondent failed to repay the same and even then,
the trial Court acquitted the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
7.On perusal of records revealed that the appellant
admitted that he had already initiated proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the wife of the
respondent and brother-in-law of the respondent. The same was
ended in acquittal. In fact, the appellant was an employee of the
respondent and he had looked after the entire transaction of the
respondent's timber Industry. Thereafter, the appellant had started
a timber business on his own. In fact, the appellant also failed to
state on which date, the respondent purchased timber. That apart,
there were transactions between the appellant and the respondent.
8.The specific case of the appellant is that the
respondent purchased timbers and in order to repay part of the
amount, he issued cheque. Whereas, the appellant failed to produce
any invoice or bill at the time of purchase of wooden logs by the
respondent. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove that the cheque
was issued for any legally enforceable debt. In fact, the appellant
also failed to produce any delivery note obtained from the
respondent in order to prove the purchase of timber. Further, the
admission of signature in a cheque leaf alone would not constitute
an admission of execution of the cheque. The execution of cheque
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
may be established by placing oral or circumstantial evidence. The
mere fact that the cheque was produced before the Court from the
appellant's possession alone is not sufficient to prove the execution,
though it may be one of the circumstances. Therefore, the trial
Court rightly dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent
and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by
the Court below. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
26.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
The Judicial Magistrate Court
(Magisterial Level),
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).No.142 of 2014
26.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
