Madras High Court
G.Panneerselvam vs V.K.Rengaraj on 30 March, 2023
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 30.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A(MD)No.176 of 2013
G.Panneerselvam ... Appellant/Complainant
vs.
V.K.Rengaraj ... Respondent/Accused
PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C.No.219 of 2011, on the
file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Thanjavur and set aside
the judgment of acquittal of the accused and convict the accused.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sekar
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in
S.T.C.No.219 of 2011, on the file of the Fast Track Court at Magisterial
Level, Thanjavur, dated 04.03.2013 and thereby, convicting the
respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
2.The appellant/complainant has lodged a complaint as against the
respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
3.The case of the appellant is that the appellant used to purchase
Sarees from the respondent and as such, he had acquainted with the
respondent. While being so, the respondent requested a loan for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- on 22.11.2010. The appellant advanced a loan of Rs.
2,50,000/- to the respondent and the respondent also promised to repay
the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the
respondent and his wife have also duly signed a receipt for the same.
After several demands, the respondent issued a cheque, dated 20.12.2010
in favour of the appellant. When the same was presented for collection,
it was returned as dishonored for the reason “exceeds arrangements”.
After issuance of statutory notice, the appellant lodged a complaint.
4.On the side of the appellant, he had examined himself as P.W.1
and exhibited 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the
accused, he had examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited 16 documents
as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.16.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found the respondent/accused not guilty for the offence under Section
138 of the N.I. Act and acquitted him. Hence, the present appeal.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
respondent categorically admitted his signature and also issuance of
cheque. Therefore, the appellant discharged his initial burden in order to
convict the respondent. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
N.I. Act is attracted and the cheque is presumed to be issued by the
respondent to the appellant in discharge of the pre-existing legally
enforceable debt. Even then, on wrongful presumption, the trial Court
has acquitted the respondent herein.
7.A perusal of the records revealed that though the respondent
admitted his signature found in Ex.P.1, in order to rebut the presumption,
the respondent himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked 16
documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.16. The mortgage deed was executed in
favour of one K.Prabhakaran. At that juncture, the respondent gave two
blank cheques to him as security and the said Prabhakaran demanded
exorbitant interest. The respondent lodged a police complaint as against
the said Prabhakaran. The specific case of the respondent is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
appellant is a stranger to him and no way connected with him. He never
borrowed any loan and he never issued any cheque (Ex.P.1) in favour of
the appellant for any legally enforceable debt. The alleged cheque was
handed over to one Prabhakaran, while borrowing the loan. The said
cheque was misused by the appellant by presenting the same for
collection. That apart, another cheque was handed over as security in
favour of the said Prabhakaran and the same was misused by one Paulraj.
Those documents were also marked by the respondent as Ex.R.5 to Ex.R.
8 and R.10. Therefore, the respondent categorically rebutted the
presumption and the appellant has failed to prove his case.
8.Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint and
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court
below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is
dismissed.
30.03.2023
sji
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
To
1.The Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Thanjavur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
sji
Crl.A.(MD)No.176 of 2013
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
