Madras High Court
C. Anand vs R. Muthuswamy on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.A.No.371 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2015
---
C. Anand .. Appellant
Versus
R. Muthuswamy .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C against the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem in C.C.No.222 of
2012, dated 22.04.2015.
For Appellant : Mr. R. Suryaprakash
For Respondent : Mr. M. Karthik
for Mr. I.C. Vasudevan
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the Judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, in C.C. No. 222 of 2012,
dated 22.04.2015.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this
Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant herein had filed C.C. No. 222 of 2012 before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem contending that he knew the Accused
/Respondent herein for the past 10 years. According to the
Appellant/Complainant, having regard to such proximity of their relationship,
the Accused requested the Appellant/Complainant to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to meet
his urgent family and business needs. On the basis of such request, the
Appellant had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent/Accused on
28.07.2012. On receipt of the amount, the Accused issued the Cheque No.
0240730 dated 28.09.2012 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
Salem in favour of the Complainant. When the said cheque was presented by
the Appellant with his Bankers Urban Bank, Ammapet Branch on 05.10.2012.
On 11.10.2012 the cheque was returned along with a memo indicating that the
cheque was issued from an “NPA Account”. Therefore, on 15.10.2012, the
Appellant sent a notice to the Respondent calling upon him to pay the cheque
amount. The notice was sent to the Respondent/Accused to his office address
as well as residential address. While the notice dated 26.10.2012 sent to the
office address of the Accused was returned unserved, the notice sent to his
residential address was received. However, the Accused has not sent any reply,
hence, the complaint was filed by the Complainant/Appellant herein.
2.2. The complaint filed by the Appellant was taken cognizance on
21.12.2012 and summons were sent to the Respondent/Accused. When the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
Accused appeared before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Salem, copies of the documents filed by the Complainant have been furnished
to him at free of costs. When the Accused was questioned about the
incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied the same. Therefore,
trial was ordered. During the trial, the Appellant/Complainant examined
himself as P.W-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. When the Accused was
questioned under Section 313 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Accused had stated that a false case had been foisted against him. The
Accused, on his side, examined the Assistant Manager of Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
Salem as D.W-1 and marked two documents as Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2.
2.3. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary
evidence, concluded that the cheque in question was tendered by the Accused
in the year 2000 to one Mr. Nataraj for security purpose and it was the subject
matter of C.C. No. 221 and 222 of 2012. It was also concluded that the above
cheques have been tendered in blank. When the Accused herein settled the
debt incurred against Mr. Nataraj and asked for the cheque to be returned, the
said Nataraj had informed him that the cheque had been lost. However, the
said Natarajan has tendered the cheque of the Accused to the Complainant
herein to institute the present complaint. Further, D.W-1, Manager of the Bank
had deposed that the subject matter of the cheque was issued ten years before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
containing the cheque leaves bearing 0240726 to 0240750 and one of the
cheques contained in the said cheque book was presented for clearance after
ten years by the Complainant. D.W-1 also deposed that except two cheques,
which are the subject matter of C.C. Nos. 221 and 222 of 2012, the other
cheques have been passed for payment ten years ago. Further, it was stated
that the cheque in question was a non-MICR Cheque which are not in use now.
Having regard to the above deposition of D.W-1, the trial Court concluded that
the cheque in question was not issued for a legally enforceable debt and
liability and the cheque was issued ten years before to one Natarajan, brother of
the Complainant. The Complainant also failed to state as to how the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the Accused on 22.07.2012, either by cash or cheque.
In the absence of the same, the preponderance of probability had to be proved
only by the Complainant, which he had failed to prove. Accordingly, the trial
Court held that the Complainant failed to prove that the cheque in question was
issued by the Accused for a legally enforceable debt/liability and dismissed the
complaint filed by the Complainant by acquitting the Respondent/Accused for
the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2.4. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, the Complainant had filed this Criminal
Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the cheque
issued by the Respondent was returned on the ground that signature and other
particulars in the cheque differs. The Appellant herein, therefore, issued notice
regarding the same to the Accused to his residential address as well as his
official address. The statutory notice sent through registered post to the
residential address was received by the Respondent/Accused, but he had not
chosen to send any reply. After waiting for the response of the Accused, the
Complainant had preferred the private complaint. However, the trial Court
acquitted the Accused on the ground that the cheque was a non-MICR cheque
issued ten years before. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Complainant/Appellant that both MICR and Non-MICR cheques are accepted
by the Banks. In any event, when the Accused had not replied to the statutory
notice, he was precluded from making defence in the complaint. Further, the
Accused is not entitled to contend that the Complainant does not have the
resources to advance Rs.3,00,000/-. When the complainant had proved that the
cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and liability by issuing the
statutory notice, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint.
4. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Accused that the Complainant does not have the resources to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
advance such a huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Accused. The Accused
examined D.W-1 to prove that the cheque was issued 10 years before. Further,
it was demonstrated that the cheque was issued to the brother of the
Complainant by name Natarajan for security purpose which was entrusted to
the Complainant, who had filled up the cheque and presented it. On the date of
presenting the cheque, the cheque was not accepted by the Bank as it is not a
MICR cheque.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent invited the attention of
this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
which is as follows:
11) ,U jug;g[ thj’;fisa[k.; Mtz’f; isa[k;
gupnrhjpj;jjpy; ,Ue;J g[fhu;jhuu; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s
1 Kjy; 5 tiuapyhd Mtz’f; s; gpupt[ 138d; fPHhd vjpup
kPjhd Fw;wj;ij epUPgpf;f mog;gilahf mDkhdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
Mdhy;. ,t;tHf;fpy;. Vjpup jug;gpy; bra;ag;gl;l FWf;F
tprhuizapd; nghJ.
xU fhnrhiy vt;thW g{u;j;jp bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk; vd;w
tpguk; vdf;F bjupa[k;/ mt;thW fhnrhiy g{u;j;jp bra;ag;gLk;
bghGJ moj;jy;. jpUj;jy; tuf;TlhJ vd;w tpguk; vdf;F
bjupa[k;/ mt;thW moj;jy;. jpUj;jy; te;jhy; fhnrhiy
bfhLf;Fk; eguhy; ifbaGj;jpl ntz;Lk;/ vd;Dila Mz;L
tUkhdk; UP 1.50.000 ,Uf;Fk;/
“,e;j tHf;fpd; flid tUkhd tupapy; fhl;o cs;nsdh
vd;why; fhl;ltpy;iy/ ,e;j tHf;fpd; fld; cs;s Mz;il ehd;
tUkhd tup jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
ehd; ve;j tUlk; tiu filrpahf tUkhd tup jhf;fy;
bra;Js;nsd; vd;why; 2008. 2009 tiu jhd; ,Uf;Fk;/ mjd;
gpwF tUkhdk; rupahf tuhjjhy; fhl;lg;gltpy;iy vd;why;
tut[f;Fk; bryt[f;Fk; rupahf cs;sJ/
M.I.C.R brf; Non M.I.C.R brf; t’;fpahy; khw;wg;gl;l
tpguk; vdf;F bjupa[k;/ ve;e tUlk; M.I.C.R cgnahfj;jpw;F
te;jJ vd;W vdf;F bjupahJ/ xU fhnrhiyia ghu;j;jhy;
M.I.C.R brf; Non M.I.C.R brf; vd;W vd;dhy; brhy;y Koa[k;
vjpupahy; tH’f; g;gl;l fhnrhiy Non M.I.C.R MFk;/ 2012 k;
Mz;ow;F Kd;ng epWj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tpguk; vdf;F
bjupa[kh vd;why; bjupahJ vd;W Twpa[s;shu;/ nkw;go vjpup
jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s Subramani vs. Damodra Naidu
vd;w cr;rePjpkd;w jPu;g;gpYk;.
2008 Crl. LJ 3353 Binod Kumar Lali V State of
Jharkhand and Anr., vd;w cr;rePjpkd;w jPu;g;gpYk;. fPH;fz;lthW
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
“Whether the petitioner complainant was competent to
advance Rs.2,35,000/- by way of loan to the opposite party at
length in which he found that the petitioner – complainant having
no regular source of income nor any business, was not in a
position to advance such a huge amount of loan”.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the
cheque alleged to have been issued by the Accused was non-MICR cheque.
The transaction under non-MICR cheque was stopped before 2012, for which
the Accused had examined D.W-1, Assistant Manager of the Bank. Also, the
learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused suggested that the Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
does not have the wherewithal to extend the loan for Rs.3,00,000/-. In the
cross-examination of P.W-1, he had stated that he had submitted income tax
returns upto 2009. When he asked as to why he had not submitted the tax
returns after 2009, he said that the income received during the subsequent years
were almost equal to the expenses. He also deposed that the income that he get
was hardly sufficient to meet his requirements. Therefore, he did not have
sufficient income for declaring income tax. Thus, it is clear that the
Complainant could not pay income tax for want of profits or income in the
business. While so, it is too hard to accept that the Complainant paid
Rs.3,00,000/- as loan to the Accused during July, 2012. In this context, the
learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 2008 Cri. L. J. 3353 in the case of Binod Kumar Lal vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, wherein it has been observed as follows:-
“whether the petitioner Complainant was competent to
advance Rs.2,35,000/- by way of loan with the opposite party at
length in which he found that the fetish of Complainant having
no regular source of income nor any business was not in a
position to advance such a huge amount of loan.”
7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore submitted that
the learned Judicial Magistrate-I had arrived at a right conclusion that the
Complainant did not have sufficient means to extend the loan and he was not
able to prove the claim made in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was
rightly dismissed by the trial Court and the Respondent/Accused was acquitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
from the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The
learned Counsel for the defence/Accused also relied on the ruling 2010 Crl LJ
1265(AP) in the case of D. Atchyutha Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra
Pradesh, wherein it was held as follows:-
“The N.I Act contains provisions raising presumptions as
regards the negotiable Instrument under Section 118(a) of the Act
as also under Section 139 thereof. The said presumptions are
rebuttable. Whether the presumption rebutted or not would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
Supreme Court clearly lad down in catena of decisions that the
standard of proof in discharge that the standard of proof in
discharge of the burden in terms of Sections 118 and 139 of
Negotiable Instruments At being the preponderance of a
probability, the inference thereof can be drawn not only from the
material brought on record but also from the reference to the
circumstances upon which the Accused relief upon. The burden to
rebut the presumptions on the Accused is not an high as that of
the prosecution”.
8. Thus, based on tho above ruling, which was also relied on by the
trial Court, it was concluded that on 22.07.2012 the Complainant did not have
Rs.3,00,000/- with him to advance loan to the Accused. And also the
Complainant failed to prove that the Accused had given a cheque on
28.09.2012 towards repayment. The cheque in question was not at all in
operation at the relevant point of time as it was a non-MICR cheque. Therefore
the claim of the Complainant was found not acceptable. The cheque was issued
10 years back which had been pressed into service by the Complainant. While
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
so, it is for the Complainant to explain under what circumstances the cheque
reached his hands. Therefore, to disprove the defence of the Accused, the
Complainant was unable to establish his case. Under those circumstances, the
learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem had rejected the claim of the Complainant.
The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, is a well reasoned
judgment and does not warrant any interference by this court.
9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further Submitted that if
actually the Respondent had issued the cheque, the Complainant would have
obtained endorsement regarding material alteration from the Accused, but he
had not done so. Therefore, adverse inference had to be drawn against the
Complainant. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied
on the judgment in Crl.R.C.No.891 of 2004, dated 31.03.2015 by Justice.
M.Satyanarayan in the case of T. Kalavathy vs. Veera Exports by Rajendran.
10. By pointing out the above decision, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent submits that this Criminal Appeal has no merits and it has to be
dismissed.
Point for consideration:
Whether the Judgment of acquittal dated 22.04.2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
recorded in C.C.No.222 of 2012 against the Accused by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, is to be set aside as
perverse?
11. Heard Thiru.R.Suryaprakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant as
well as Thiru.M.Karthik for M/s.I.C.Vasudevan learned Counsel for the
Respondent. Perused the material records placed, including the Judgment
dated 22.04.2015 of the trial court.
12. The claim of the Complainant in the complaint is that the cheque
was returned as NPA (“Non-Performing Assets”) cheque. The Accused
knowing fully well that his Bank account is under NPA (“Non-Performing
Assets”) had issued the cheque thereby committed fraud on the Complainant.
13. In the cross examination of P.W-1, the attempt of the learned
Counsel for the defence/Accused was to elicit that the Complainant did not
have the wherewithal to extend the loan for Rs.3,00,000/-. The learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Salem had relied on the reported ruling cited by the learned
Counsel for the Accused that the Complainant has to establish that he had the
resources to pay the loan amount to the Accused. In this case, the cheque was
issued by the Accused in blank. The Bank to which the cheque was presented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
had not returned the cheque as “insufficient funds” but it has made an
endorsement stating as “NPA (“Non-Performing Assets”) account. This shows
that the account was inoperative and the cheque issued by the Accused was
from such an account. Therefore, the Complainant had clearly stated that
knowing fully well that it is NPA (“Non-Performing Assets”) account the
Accused had issued a cheque towards repayment of the amount and thereby
committed the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
14. The defence of the Accused is that he had issued the cheque to
one Natarajan and it is for the Complainant to explain how it reached him. The
said Natarajan is a cousin of the Complainant. If what had been stated in the
defence of the Accused is true, he should have either summoned the said
Natarajan. Even if Natarajan had not appeared before the Court, the Court can
draw adverse inference against Natarajan, but it was not done. Above all,
statutory notice was given by the Complainant for which no reply was issued
by the Respondent/Accused. The Court has to draw adverse inference against
conduct of the Accused in evading statutory notice or in not denying a
signature in the cheque. His only defence is that the cheque was not at all in
circulation in the Bank as it is an non-MICR Cheque, issued a decade before.
The Accused also examined the Assistant Manager of Lakshmi Villas Bank as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
D.W-1. D.W-1 had let in evidence. In the cross examination, D.W-1 had
admitted that both MICR cheque as well as non- MICR cheque are honored by
the Bank, if there are sufficient amount in the account of the depositor/account
holder. Also he admitted that in the year 2002, the account of the Accused was
declared as “Non-Performing Asset” account. Therefore, the Complainant had
in his complaint clearly stated that at the time of issuing of the cheque, the
Accused was aware that the account is not operative and it was classified as a
“Non Performing Asset” account. The learned trial Judge failed to consider
these aspects. Instead he had taken a different defence that the Complainant did
not have sufficient means to extend the loan. If what had been claimed by him
is true, he should have examined or summoned Natarajan. It is for the Accused
to explain how a cheque signed by him reached the hands of the Complainant.
The fact that the Accused did not issue reply to the statutory notice itself gives
a presumption against the Accused under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
15. After summon was served on the Accused, the Accused appeared
before the Court and contested the claim wherein he had confused the Court by
using technical defence that the cheque is non-MICR cheque and there was
overwriting in the cheque which was not endorsed by the Accused. D.W-1
Assistant Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank in his cross examination had clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
admitted that the cheque was not returned on the ground that there are
overwriting or the signature is disputed but it was returned only on the ground
that the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset account which means
there is no sufficient funds. Also in the cross examination, D.W-1 admitted that
the Bank had filed civil case for the liability of the Accused towards the Bank.
Under those circumstances, it is to be presumed that the Accused is in the habit
of availing loan and he is a chronic defaulter. Therefore, that much of evidence
is available against the Accused during the trial. The fact that the Accused was
able to probabilize the defence is not correct. The cross examination of D.W-1
indicates that the Accused is a regular defaulter and in the habit of availing
loan. The Assistant Manager of the Bank had deposed evidence as D.W-1
stated that the Bank honors the cheque irrespective of MICR or non-MICR, if
there are sufficient funds.
16. Here in this case the cheque in question was not returned for the
reason there is overwriting, but it was returned only as NPA account indicating
inoperative account. Therefore, the claim made by the Complainant in the
complaint had been proved. The Assistant Manager of the Bank had in his
cross examination, clearly admitted the suggestion of the learned Counsel for
the Complainant that irrespective of MICR or non-MICR, if there are sufficient
funds, the Bank honors. To the pointed question, what happened to the rest of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
the cheques, when the account was declared as Non-Performing Asset account,
the Assistant Manager of the Bank claims ignorance. It is not known whether
they had demanded the account holder to surrender those cheques. Therefore,
through the materials available before the trial Court, the Accused himself had
not entered the witness box to let in rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the
presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, is against the Accused, when he had not at all denied the signature in the
cheque. The finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I is found to have been
carried away by the argument skill of the Counsel for the Accused before the
trial Court.
17. The learned Counsel for the Accused relied on reported decisions
which are not applicable to the fact of this case. The Accused had received the
statutory notice but not questioned the wherewithal of the Complainant. When
the Accused had not denied signature in the cheque, the presumption always is
in favor of the Complainant and against the Accused. The Complainant had
clearly stated that the cheque was returned as NPA account. Therefore, the
Complainant had stated in the complaint that knowing fully well that the Bank
account of the Accused was NPA account, he had issued cheque. That itself
attracts section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
against Accused. Added to that, he had evaded the statutory notice. When the
Complainant was cross-examined as P.W-1, the learned Counsel for the
Accused had confused the Court by putting up questions which are not
relevant to the facts and issue in this case and placing reliance on rulings which
are not applicable to the facts of this case. After having availed the loan
instead of repaying the loan, the conduct of the Accused that the Complainant
does not have the wherewithal to extend such loan and the Accused had not at
all borrowed money from the Complainant, is not proper. He had not entered
the witness box. After having availed the loan and having committed default,
the conduct of the Accused teasing the Complainant as he does not have the
resources to extend loan cannot at all be accepted by a Court of law. The
Accused cannot be permitted to raise such defense when he had not denied the
signature in the cheque. When he had admitted that he had issued cheque in
question but not to the Complainant but to a different person, it is found to be
an evasive denial which does not have evidentiary value before the Court of
law.
18. The preponderance of probabilities theory invoked in this case is
not helpful to the Accused. If the Accused had entered the witness box and let
in evidence to disprove the claim of the Complainant, then it can be stated that
the Accused was successful in establishing Preponderance of probabilities of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
the case. Here, the attempt of the Accused to examine the Assistant Manager
of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank as D.W-1 to prove that the cheque book containing
the cheque in question in this case was issued to the Accused during 2000-2001
which was pressed into service by the Complainant when actually non-MICR
cheques were not in circulation was futile as per the answers in cross
examination by D.W-1. The Manager is competent to speak about the
operations of the Bank, he had clearly stated irrespective of MICR or non-
MICR when the account holder has sufficient amount in the Bank, the Bank is
ready to honor the cheque. The Assistant Manager D.W-1 was not able to
specify in clear terms after the account of the Accused was declared as NPA
account, whether the Accused was directed to surrender the unused cheques, he
was unable to answer. Also, he had admitted in cross examination that since
the account is declared as NPA account the Bank had filed civil suit for
recovery of the amount from the Accused. But, he was unable to give
particulars when it is Non Performing Assets naturally Bank will proceed with
recovery proceedings. Therefore, the attempt of the Accused to disprove the
case of the Complainant had boomeranged on the Accused. Instead of
supporting the case of the Accused, the cross examination of the learned
Counsel for the Complainant and the answers given by the Assistant Manager
of the Bank as D.W-1 was in favor of the Complainant's case. Regarding the
conduct of the Accused in issuing a cheque which was given as non-MICR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
cheque book 10 years back and also in the year 2002, the Bank account was
declared as Non-Performing Assets account and recovery proceedings had
been initiated against Accused.
19. Under those circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Salem, rejecting the complaint and acquitting the Accused is perverse. When
the materials available are in favour of the Complainant and Accused had not
denied the issuance of cheque, then the presumption under Sections 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is against the Accused and in
favour of the Complainant. The Complainant had issued statutory notice stating
clearly that the cheque was returned as NPA account. Therefore, the
Complainant had proved his case before the trial Court. The discussion of
evidence in paragraphs 11 to 13 is found perverse and the same is set aside.
The Complainant had proved the case against the Accused.
20. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is
answered in favour of the Appellant/Complainant and against the Respondent
/Accused. The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem in
C.C.No.222 of 2012, dated 22.04.2015 is found perverse warranting
interference by this Court, exercising the power of the Appellate Court under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of
acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem in C.C.No.222 of
2012, dated 22.04.2015 is set aside. The Accused is convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is sentence to undergo
imprisonment of one year and to pay compensation under Section 357 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of Rs.3,00,000/- ( Rupees three lakhs
only).
The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem shall issue warrant to the
Accused and secure the Accused by directing the jurisdictional Police to secure
the Accused and report compliance to this Court to undergo sentence of
imprisonment of one year. The Complainant shall file appropriate petition to
execute the recovery of the amount either through civil court or through the
learned Judicial Magistrate court for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- including
attachment of assets of the Accused. As per the earlier ruling of this High
Court, after getting a Judgment in favour of the Complainant the Complainant
is within his a right to approach the executing court/Civil Court, the Judgment
in Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, will be treated as a decree.
Therefore, the Complainant can avail those reliefs.
17.04.2025
shl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Salem
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
3. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court of Madras – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
shl
Judgment in
17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 10:54:04 am )
