Madras High Court
P.Ramachandran vs A.Karunanithi on 23 June, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.687 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A(MD)No.687 of 2025
P.Ramachandran
... Appellant
Vs
A.Karunanithi
... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Case filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to call
for records and set aside the impugned Judgment of acquittal, dated 17.04.2025,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level),
Thanjavur in STC No.241 of 2023 and convict the respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. P.M.Vishuvarthanan
JUDGMENT
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the
Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate
Level), Thanjavur, dated 17.04.2025 made in STC No.241 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
2.The appellant is the complainant, who had filed a private
complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') on the
allegation that the respondent has obtained a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs and he has been
paying the interest regularly and thereafter, he defaulted to pay both the interest
and the principal amount and towards discharge of the same, he has issued a
cheque for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs on 08.02.2023. When it is presented for
collection, the cheque was not honoured and returned as 'funds insufficient'.
3.The trial judge after having conducted the trial and examining one
witness on the side of the defacto complainant and receiving exhibits, Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9 and Ex.D.1, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over that this appeal has
been preferred by the complainant.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
when the respondent did not deny the signature is the cheque, the petitioner is
entitled to initial presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act and that has not
been properly appreciated by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
5.It is further submitted that the respondent was in the habit of
paying the interest to an extent of Rs.1,08,000/- and that was also not properly
considered by the trial Court. The respondent, without discharging his burden
of rebuttal, has got the benefit of dismissal of the complaint. It is not correct.
6.On a perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the learned trial Judge
has appreciated the points taken by the defacto complainant that the respondent
was paying interest until sometime to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/-. But the Court
was not able to accept such contention on the ground that no such document has
been produced to substantiate his contention.
7.However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
proof of consideration goes with the initial presumption under Section 138 of
N.I. Act and that ought to have been properly considered by the trial Court. It is
submitted that the respondent without letting any rebuttal proof, has been
allowed to go scot free.
8.So far as the reverse burden on the part of the respondent is
concerned, the rebuttal proof cannot only be direct, but it can be indirect. That
would mean that the respondent can demolish the initial presumption either by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
way of letting direct evidence or by relying upon the infirmities on the evidence
of the complainant.
9.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, reported in (2019) 5 SCC
418, wherein, it is held as follows:
“25.We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in
the above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise
the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:
25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139
of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the
discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable
presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable
defence. The standard of proof a for rebutting the presumption is
that of preponderance of probabilities.
25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to
rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the
materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a
probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities
can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by
the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which
they rely.
25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the
witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come in the
witness box to support his defence.”
10.The defence of the respondent is that the complainant and the
accused had been running a joint business and during that time, he had issued an
unfilled signed cheque and that has been misused by the complainant for the
purpose of the case. The respondent has also produced Ex.D1 to show that there
was some joint business run between the defacto complainant and the
respondent and the respondent was managing the affairs of the business.
11.Though Ex.D1 does not state anything concrete about the
transaction concerning, the impugned cheque, it can probalise the fact that the
respondent has got his association with the complainant, as a partner in
conducting a partnership business.
12.Under such circumstances, the burden would once again shift on
the shoulder of the defacto complainant to prove that the cheque was indeed
supported by consideration and the respondent has issued the cheque just for
discharging the same. For that, the appellant appears to place reliance mostly on
the allegation that the respondent has been paying the interest of Rs 1,08,000/-,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
but the said fact was not substantiated.
13.In these circumstances, the trial Court was not able to conclude
the initial presumption as a conclusive proof and that resulted in dismisssal of
the complaint.
14. As I find no error of understanding and appreciation on the part
of the trial Court, the Judgment does not require any interference.
15.Accordingly,
● this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed;
● the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Thanjavur
in STC No.241 of 2023, dated 17.04.2025, is confirmed.
23.06.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Thanjavur
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J.
PNM
JUDGMENT IN
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 06:15:30 pm )
