Madras High Court
M.Kannan vs Muthuselvam on 3 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.205 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.205 of 2022
M.Kannan ... Appellant / Complainant
-Vs-
Muthuselvam ... Respondent / Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment made in C.C.No.464 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I,
Namakkal dated 17.08.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel.
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed as against the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal dated 17.08.2020. By the said judgment, the
accused was found not guilty of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant / complainant under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is residing
at Namakkal Taluk and is doing his business in the name and style Jayam
Traders. He had professional relationship with the accused and her husband. The
complainant had supplied coconuts to the accused and her husband and the
husband of the accused is residing at Dubai and is doing the coconut business.
The accused had been supplying coconuts on credit basis. In order to discharge
their liability, the accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- dated
30.05.2019. Upon the same being presented for collection, the same was returned
dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, a statutory
notice was issued and the accused willfully refused the same knowing the
contents thereof. Since the amount was not paid within the statutory period, the
complaint is filed. A sworn statement was recorded and the complaint was taken
on file and summons was issued to the accused. Upon appearance and furnishing
copies, the accused denied the allegations stood trial.
3. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as
PW-1 and on behalf of the complainant, the dishonoured cheque was marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
Ex.P1. The return memo was marked as Ex.P2. The statutory notice issued by the
complainant was marked as Ex.P3. The returned cover was marked as Ex.P4. The
Partnership Deed evidencing the complainant trading as Jayam Traders was
marked as Ex.P5. The Power of Attorney issued by the complainant on behalf of
the partnership was marked as Ex.P6.
4. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and
circumstances on record under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same
as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.
5. The trial Court considered the case of the parties and held that the
complainant has not proved the fact as to the cheque was issued for a legally
enforceable debt and acquitted the accused. As against which, the present Appeal
is filed.
6. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would first take this Court through the statutory notice, complaint and
the evidence in chief and cross examination of the complainant and would submit
that it is clear that the accused has not denied the signature in the cheque. The
cheque has been duly presented and it returned with an endorsement 'funds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
insufficient' and the statutory notice issued in time are all not denied. The
complainant has categorically pleaded about the fact that the coconuts was
supplied to the husband of the accused, through the accused, who was dealing
with the same in Dubai and the cheque was issued in discharge of the said
liability. In view thereof, by duly marking the cheque and by the evidence of the
complainant PW-1, the complainant has duly discharged the initial onus and once
the initial onus is discharged, it for the accused to rebut the presumption, as the
presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the
complainant.
7. The said legal position has categorically laid upon by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s.Kalamani Tex & Anr V. P.Balasubramanian (Criminal
Appeal No.123 of 2021) and in this case, the trial Court grievously errored in
further mulcting the onus on the complainant and holding that the complainant
has not proved the transactions.
8. In this case, not even a reply has been issued to the statutory notice and
it adds to the weightage of presumption. Further, there were overwhelming
evidence with the complainant with reference to the supply of the coconuts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
the trial was also conducted during Covid-19 Pandemic period, in which the
complainant was examined online and that should also be taken in account by
this Court. In any event, atleast an opportunity for the complainant to adduce
further evidence should be granted by this Court when huge quantity of coconuts
were supplied and the accused has not made the payment. Especially when the
accused has not let in evidence to defend herself as to how the said cheque duly
signed by her is with the complainant, then the trial Court ought to have
convicted the accused.
9. I have considered the said submissions that are made by the learned
Senior Counsel and perused the material records of the case.
10. In this matter, it is the consistent case of the complainant in the
complaint, sworn statement and statutory notice and chief affidavit that the
complainant has supplied coconuts to the husband of the accused through the
accused and in discharge of the liability the accused has issued the cheque.
However, in the cross-examination of the complainant, he had suddenly stated as
follows:
“k/rh/M3 Mtzj;jpy; vjphpapd; fzth; uh$;FkhUf;F bghUl;fis
mDg;gpajhf Fwpgg; plg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; ,y;iy/ bghUl;fis Vw;Wkjp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
bra;tjw;F b$ak; onulh;!; epWtdj;jpd; bgahpy; bra;njdh vd;why; Mkhk;/
Vw;Wkjp ,wf;Fkjp bra;ag;gl;ljw;fhd Mtz';fs; midj;ija[k; Mz;L
jzpf;if mwpf;ifapy; gjpt[ bra;Js;nsdh vd;why; jw;nghJ tiu gjpt[
bra;Js;nsd;/ 2019 Mz;L mwpf;ifapy; vjphpapd; fztUf;F nj';fha;
mDg;gpa tifapy; gzk; tuntz;o cs;sJ vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sjh
vd;why; vjphpapd; fzth; elj;jp tUk; Green Goods vd;w epWtdj;jpd;
bgah; Fwpgg; plg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Green Goods epWtdj;jpw;F mDg;gpa
nj';fha;fSf;F cz;lhd bjhif jpUk;g bgWtjw;fhd ,e;j tHf;fh
vd;why; ,y;iy/ ,e;j tHf;F jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy; Kj;Jr;bry;tj;jpw;F
bfhLf;fg;gl;l bjhiff;fhd tHf;fhFk;/ Kj;Jr;bry;tj;jpw;F jdpg;gl;l
Kiwapy; nj';fha;fis bfhLj;njd; mjw;fhfj;jhd; ,e;j tHf;F/ b$ak;
onulh;!; jtpu ntW bgahpy; tpahghuk; bra;fpnwdh vd;why; Mkhk;/ vjphp
Kj;Jr;bry;tj;jpw;F nj';fha;fis mDg;gpajw;fhd ,d;tha;!; cs;sjh
vd;why; ,y;iy/”
11. Thus, in this case, even though the learned Senior Counsel is right in
arguing that by marking the cheque and by his chief evidence, the complainant
has discharged the onus and that the presumption comes in favour of the
complainant, the law is also now settled that the presumption can also be rebutted
by due cross examination of the complainant. Therefore, once the complainant
did not stick to his ground, as to why the cheque has been issued, through the
cross examination, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption. Once
the presumption is rebutted, then it is for the complainant to let in such evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
that he had supplied coconuts either in the individual capacity to the accused or
to her husband. Even in the appeal, no other additional document is sought to be
produced. The documents that are marked before the trial Court are narrated
above. There is no any statement of accounts to show that there is any supply or
running accounts or for delivery of the goods were marked.
12. In the absence of any other evidence, when the complainant itself is
coming up with the prevaricating statements regarding supply of coconuts and
when a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed as outstanding, no fault can be
found with the trial Court granting the benefit of doubt to the accused. In an
appeal against acquittal, unless the finding of the trial Court is perverse or an
impossible view, this Court cannot upturn the finding into one of guilt.
Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
03.11.2025
smv
Neutral citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
To:
The learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTH, J.
smv
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
