Madras High Court
T.N.Venkatesan vs Anthony Francis on 26 June, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.556 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.556 of 2012
T.N.Venkatesan .. Appellant
Versus
Anthony Francis .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to set aside
the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track
Court), Vellore district in C.C.No.287 of 2011, dated 22.06.2012, on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Vellore district and
convict the respondent and order for the payment of maximum
compensation to the appellant herein under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Deivasigamani,
for Mr.V.Madhavan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
Crl.A.No.556 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the leaned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore district, dated 22.06.2012
made in C.C.No.287 of 2011. By the said judgment, the respondent/accused
is acquitted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the accused borrowed
hand loan by executing Ex.P-1 promissory notice and in order to discharge
the said liability, issued the subject matter cheque for a sum of Rs.1,48,000/-
which includes the principal amount along with the interest and when the
same was presented to the bank for collection, the same was returned with
an endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 09.02.2010. The respondent/accused
issued statutory notice on 28.02.2010 and even after receipt of the notice
through certificate of posting, the respondent/accused did not repay the
amount in time and hence the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
3. Upon issue of summons, the respondent/accused appeared before
the Trial Court and denied the charge. In order to prove the case, the
appellant/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were
marked. The respondent/accused denied the evidence that is let in upon
being questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, no evidence
was let in on behalf of the defence. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court
considered the case of the parties and acquitted the respondent/accused. The
Trial Court found that Ex.P-1 promissory note was not witnessed by
anybody and when it is mandatory under law that the document should be
proved by a witness, in the absence of a witness to the promissory note in
Ex.P-1, held that the said document as invalid. Further, it noticed that the
promissory note is dated 06.02.2008 and is also beyond the period of
limitation and there is no acknowledgment of debt. The said finding that the
period of limitation is over, cannot be sustained as the promissory note is
dated 06.02.2008 and the cheque was issued on 08.02.2010. Therefore, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
within the period of limitation and the said finding of the Trial Court is
perverse in nature.
4. However, the Trial Court also considered the answer of the
appellant/complainant with reference to various questions that were made
relating to the cross-examination that if the records are produced relating to
the financial transactions between him and his customers, the fact that the
appellant/complainant had initial transaction with the wife of the
respondent/accused and this unfilled promissory note was handed over at
that time, will come to light and in view of the answer given by the
appellant/complainant, held that the case of the appellant/complainant is not
believable and to the level of preponderance of probability, the
respondent/accused had dislodged the presumption under the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and in the absence of any further proof to prove the
debt, held that the appellant/complainant failed to prove the case and
acquitted the respondent/accused of an offence under Section 138 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Heard Mr.S.Deivasigamani, learned Counsel for the
appellant/complainant.
6. As stated supra, even though one of the findings of the Trial Court
is perverse in nature, there are other findings with reference to the validity of
the promissory note and also the appreciation of the evidence relating to
non-production of the accounts and the other answers given by the
appellant/complainant that are taken into account by the Trial Court. In that
view of the matter, I am unable to hold that the judgment of the Trial Court
is completely perverse or wholly untenable and if the view taken by the Trial
Court is a plausible view, then, this Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will
not upturn the finding.
7. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
dismissed.
26.06.2025
Neutral Citation : no
grs
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 12:59:30 pm )
