Madras High Court
R.Sekar vs A.Manivannan on 13 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.236 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.236 of 2023
R.Sekar ... Appellant
Vs
A.Manivannan ...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the impugned
order/Judgment passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track
Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai in CC.12926 of 2009 in the Judgment dated
14.05.2019 and allow this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.J.Jayabalan
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned
order/Judgment passed in CC.No.12926 of 2009 dated 14.05.2019 by the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai,
thereby acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
in the complaint lodged by the appellant in C.C.No.12926 of 2009 for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case
of the appellant is that the respondent was running a petroleum outlet in the
name and style of S.R.Agency as a dealership from the Indian Oil Corporation
at GST Road, Mamandur, Kanchipuram District. However, the respondent was
unable to manage the petrol bunk and approached the appellant, expressing his
inability to continue the business. The appellant was interested to take over the
management of the petrol bunk and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the
respondent. Accordingly, the appellant had paid the said amount and entered
into a deed of management on 02.01.2007 for a period of 20 years. While being
so, all of a sudden, the respondent caused a legal notice dated 10.10.2008
containing false allegations as against the appellant. Thereafter, the petrol bunk
was closed and the appellant was forcibly evicted from the petrol bunk on
22.10.2008. Once again, the respondent caused another legal notice dated
01.11.2008, thereby levelling serious allegations as against the appellant.
Therefore, the appellant demanded for repayment of Rs.5 Lakhs, which had
been paid to the respondent. Apart from that, the appellant had also spent a
substantial amount towards improvement of the petrol bunk. After negotiations,
it was finally agreed by the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.29 Lakhs to the
appellant and issued a cheque for the said amount. It was presented for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “Account
Frozen” transaction not allowed. After causing statutory notice, filed a
complaint.
3. On the side of the appellant, he had examined PWs.1 and 2 and
marked Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the accused, he was examined as DW.1
and marked Exs.D1 to D21. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the
Trial Court, acquitted the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the respondent failed to rebut the
presumption, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent herein.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of records revealed that the appellant was examined as
PW.1. The statutory notice issued by the appellant was marked as Ex.P9. On
receipt of the same, the respondent issued a reply notice, which was marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
Ex.P11. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, the respondent was
examined as DW.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D21. The case of the appellant is that
he was entrusted with the management of the petrol bunk on payment of Rs.5
Lakhs. Thereafter, n order to improve and develop the petrol bunk, the appellant
had spent a substantial amount. Finally, both had negotiations and the
respondent agreed to repay a sum of Rs.29 lakhs and issued a cheque for the
same.
7. It is a specific case of the respondent that he was granted
dealership to operate the petroleum outlet under Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,.
With regard to the management of petrol bunk, the respondent had already
issued legal notices dated 10.10.2008 and 01.11.2008 to the appellant, stating
that by entering the Deed of Management, the appellant had colluded with one
S.Rukmangathan. It was further alleged that the cheque books and other
documents relating to M/s S.R.Agency were misused by handling over a cheque
to the said S.Rukmangathan. The respondent categorically denied having
received Rs.5 Lakhs from the appellant. Therefore, the cheque was not issued
for any legally enforceable debt and there was absolutely no consideration
received from the appellant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
8. Further, PW.1 had categorically deposed that he was appointed
only as a Manager as per Ex.P1, the Deed of Management, in which there was
not even a whisper about the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs. Further, as per the terms
of Deed of Management, the appellant was not authorised to incur any
expenditure for the development of the petrol bunk. Therefore, even according
to the appellant, there is no evidence to establish the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs to
the respondent herein. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.29 Lakhs was
arrived as future loss for the petrol bunk.
9. Therefore, there is absolutely no legal liability for the respondent
to issue cheque for a sum of Rs.29 Lakhs. Even according to the appellant, the
said amount was arrived towards uncertain future liability. Further, the appellant
had acted as a Manager and used the cheque leaves of the respondent for
purchase of petroleum.
10. Thus, it is clear that the alleged cheque was misused by the
appellant and initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and this
Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed in CC.No.12926 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
2009 dated 14.05.2019 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track
Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
13.06.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
To
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III,
Saidapet, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 11:38:08 am )
