Madras High Court

R.Tamilselvan vs E.Thanigachalam on 19 October, 2024

Author: N.Seshasayee

Bench: N.Seshasayee

                                                                                Crl.A.No.728 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              Reserved on : 08.08.2024

                                             Pronounced on : 19.10.2024


                                        CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                               Crl.A.No.728 of 2016


                R.Tamilselvan                                      .... Appellant / Complainant

                                                    Vs


                E.Thanigachalam                                    .... Respondent / Accused



                Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., praying to allow the
                appeal by setting aside the acquittal against the respondent, passed in
                STC.No.1330 of 2014 dated 12.05.2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
                No.1, Panruti and convict the respondent with a direction to pay compensation
                equivalent to the cheque amount.


                                        For Appellant     : Mr.K.Sasindran
                                        For Respondent    : No appearance

                                                           [Notice served]




                1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      Crl.A.No.728 of 2016




                                                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgement in STC.No.1330 of 2014 dated

12.05.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, acquitting the

respondent herein for an alleged offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act.

2. The case of the appellant/complainant is as below:

a) The complainant, one R. Tamilselvan (P.W.1), is a field officer in

Anna Sugar Mills. The accused is a coolie who works in various sugar

factories in Tamil Nadu. The complainant and the respondent/accused

shared acquaintance for about three years at the time when the

complaint was preferred.

b) On 20.09.2013, the respondent borrowed Rs. 3,00,000/- from the

complainant at his house for personal and family expenses. The loan

was not backed by any security or documents since the complainant

and the accused were acquaintances.

c) The accused promised to repay the loan within three months, i.e., on

or before 20.12.2013, along with interest. The respondent, however,

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

failed to repay the loan. Therefore, the complainant confronted the

accused about the repayment of the loan at his house, only to be met

with evasive replies. It is in these circumstances, on 25.12.2013, the

respondent went to the complainant’s office and issued Ext.P1 cheque

bearing number 10020131, dated 24.01.2014 drawn on his banker M/s

Federal Bank, in favour of the complainant.

d) On 24.01.2014, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment

with his bank, M/s Indian Overseas Bank, Kurungulam branch.

However, the cheque was dishonoured on the same day due to

insufficiency of funds and it was returned along with Ext.P2 the

Cheque dishonour memo. The complainant received it on 29.01.2014

from his bank.

e) On 08.02.2014, the complainant sent a statutory notice (Ex. P3) to the

accused through his advocate. It was received by the accused on

25.02.2014. On 01.03.2014, the accused issued his Ext.P4 reply

notice.

As the respondent did not come forward to discharge the outstanding liability

for which he issued Ext.P1 cheque, the complaint was laid.

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

3. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and the respondent

examined himself as D.W.1. While the complainant produced Exts. P1 to P4,

the respondent chose not to produce any documentary evidence.

4. The line of defence as disclosed right from Ext.P4 reply notice and through

the trial is: The respondent had never borrowed any amount from the appellant.

Some six months prior to Ext.P3 notice, the appellant as field officer of a sugar

factory, had approached the respondent for cutting cane and had advanced

Rs.1.0 lakh and secured the same by obtaining the RC book of respondent's

tractor, and a blank cheque. One Gurunathan and another Aruljothi were

witnesses to this transaction. However, when the respondent required the

appellant to return the security after the former did his contracted job, the latter

had informed him that he had misplaced it. And, neither the RC book nor the

cheque were returned. This cheque has been misused by him. Indeed, the

respondent only knew to sign, but he is otherwise illiterate.

5. The trial court found the case of the appellant/complainant unbelievable and

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

its reasoning is:

a) In his complaint, Ext.P3 notice, and proof affidavit, the complainant

has stated that the cheque was issued by the accused at the office of

the complainant. However, in the cross-examination, the complainant

has stated that the cheque was issued at his house. The place of

issuance of the cheque is unclear.

b) The complainant concedes that as a field officer in sugarcane mills,

his monthly earning was around Rs.12,000/- per month. He did not

show that he actually possessed Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash for him to lend

to the respondent. The appellant, during cross-examination tried to

explain the same, when he deposed that he had obtained the said

money from an unnamed friend of his. This friend however, was not

examined.

c) Extending a loan without obtaining necessary documents from the

accused as security is unnatural.

d) P.W.1 himself has admitted that the accused does not know how to

read and write. Therefore, the filling of a cheque in the English

language by the accused seems highly improbable.

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

e) P.W.1 himself admits that he is a government servant and he did not

obtain the permission of his superior to lend money to the accused.

f) Mere production of a cheque from the complainant’s possession is not

sufficient to prove that the disputed cheque was issued in connection

to a legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the presumption in favour of

the complainant under Section 139 stands rebutted.

Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

6. While notice was served on the respondent, he chose not to enter appearance.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant:

a) When once a cheque is issued, it is first backed by a presumption

under Sec.118 of the the NI Act, and when it is dishonoured then it

will invite the application of Sec.139.

b) According to the respondent, when he tendered the cheque to the

appellant as the field officer of Anna Sugar factory, there were two

witnesses, and he did not examine any of them. After all when the

burden is on him to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of the NI

Act, he should have examined those two witnesses. His non-

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

examination of those two witnesses deserves drawing of adverse

inference against him.

c) The respondent has not made any attempt to retrieve these documents,

cheque, and R.C book from the appellant because the appellant does

not possess any of the said documents except the cheque issued to

satisfy the debt.

d) There are contradictions in the defence version of the case as stated in

Ex. P4 and cross-examination. In cross-examination, the respondent

contends that he had issued the cheque as a security to secure his job

in the Anna Sugar Mills . However, in Ext. P4, he has stated that he

had issued the cheque as a security to back the advance money of Rs.

1,00,000/- extended by the appellant.

e) The salary of the appellant is not a criterion to measure the lending

capacity of the appellant. If the respondent desires to dispute the

lending capacity of the appellant, it is for him to substantiate that the

appellant did not possess the requisite lending capacity to extend Rs.

3,00,000/- at the time when the said amount was handed to the

respondent.

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

f) The presumption under Section 139 should be rebutted by the

respondent and the court cannot do the same on the basis of the

lacunae found in the version of the complainant.

7. The appellant is informed that where he had preferred an appeal against the

judgement of the trial court acquitting the accused person, then he ought to

establish before this court that the evidence on record can only lead to one

conclusion which points to the guilt of the accused person, and hence the

judgement acquitting the latter is perverse. And, where two views are possible

the one in favour of the accused person should be preferred.

8. There are two aspects of the appellant's submissions on the point of law with

which this court concurs: (a) that a negotiable instrument is backed by

consideration under Sec.118 of the NI Act, and where the negotiable instrument

is a cheque and where the cheque so issued is dishonoured then Sec.139 of the

NI Act creates a presumption that it was issued for discharging an outstanding

liability; and (b) while both these presumptions are rebuttable, it is for the

accused person to rebut it through evidence and it is not for the Court.

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

9. During cross examination the appellant as P.W.1, had conceded that he did

not possess the money but had borrowed it from his friend, and this opens a line

of defence for the respondent where he is seen attempting to establish that the

appellant did not possess the money to advance it to the former. This is a

permissible line of defence for rebutting the presumption under Sec.139 of the

NI Act. Secondly, PW1 had deposed that the respondent had filled the cheque,

whereas according to the respondent he only knew to put his signature and that

he is otherwise illiterate. P.W.1 also admits that since the respondent was

illiterate, he would have the accounts submitted to the sugar mills only through

the former (the appellant). The cheque in question shows that the respondent

had signed the cheque in Tamil typically like an illiterate who is taught only to

sign, but the body of the cheque is filled up in English. Whether the respondent

could have filled up the cheque? The cheque itself is scanned and pasted

below:

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

How to believe that a man whose strokes in the signature are hardly seen as free

flowing could have filled up the body of the cheque in English where the hand

is seen to be free moving were written by the same person ? There is terrible

mismatch and it extends to affect even the believability of appellant's case.

And, P.W.1 himself lends corroboration to this conclusion since he had

conceded that he would write the accounts for the respondent as the latter was

illiterate.

10. The evidence on record indicate that, contrary to the perception of the

appellant, the trial Court has not over enthusiastically come to the rescue of the

respondent by spinning its own facts for rebutting the statutory presumption,

but the appellant himself has fed the trial court with adequate facts for it to

arrive at the decision that it had arrived. This court does not find that the

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

judgement of the court below is perverse as to warrant an interference by this

court.

11. To conclude, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, dated 12.05.2016 in STC.No.1330 of 2014 is

hereby confirmed.

19.10.2024