Madras High Court
Rajavel vs Chakkaravarthi on 3 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.288 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.288 of 2022
Rajavel ... Appellant / Complainant
-Vs-
Chakkaravarthi ... Respondent / Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying to call
for the records in relation to the judgment dated 01.04.2021 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal in C.C.No.487 of 2015 and set aside the same
by convicting the respondent / accused for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For Appellant : Mr.S. Senthil
For Respondent : Ms.P.Santhiya
For Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman
JUDGMENT
The Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 01.04.2021 of the learned
Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal made in C.C.487 of 2015. By the said
judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the accused 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 complainant under Section 200
of Cr.P.C., alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The case of the complainant is that on 28.03.2014, by way of RTGS, the
complainant advanced a loan to the accused who was the known person to him.
The accused promised to repay the said loan within a month. But however, he did
not do so. Thereafter, the accused agreed to repay the same with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum. Thereafter, in the month of October 2014, the accused
issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each directing the complainant to
present the cheques and take the money and calculate the interest and requesting
the complainant to repay the balance amount to the accused. The complainant
presented the cheques for collection, the cheques returned dishonoured.
Thereafter, the accused once again took back the said two cheques for
Rs.5,00,000/- each and once again issued yet another cheque in the year 2015 i.e.,
dated 13.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant presented the
said cheque for collection, which was returned dishonoured with an endorsement
‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, the statutory notice was issued. To which, a reply
notice was issued by the accused containing false particulars and a rejoinder
notice was issued and the complaint was filed. The sworn statement was recorded
and the complaint was taken on file and summons was issued to the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
3. Upon furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the
allegations, which stood trial.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as
PW-1 and exhibits P1 to P 7 were marked on behalf of the complainant. Upon
being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on
record under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same. Thereafter,
one Ramakrishnan was examined as DW-1 on behalf of the accused.
5. The trial Court, thereafter, considered the case of the parties. The trial
Court first considered the fact that the complainant in the statutory notice did not
mention anything about the accused earlier giving two cheques for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- each and admitted the same only in the rejoinder notice. The trial
Court further considered the fact that the complainant in the cross examination
admitted that on the same day of RTGS i.e., on 28.03.2014 they had purchased
plots from DW-1 Ramakrishnan and sale deeds were also executed and therefore,
the trial Court believed the version of the accused that, the money has been
transferred pursuant to the real estate transaction. The trial Court further believed
the version of the DW-1 that the amount was transferred to the accused towards
the payment of the stamp duty and registration charges etc., in relation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
registration of the plots and that the case of the accused that the cheques were
issued as a security in respect thereof, seem to be probable and giving the benefit
of the doubt to the accused, acquitted the accused.
6. Heard Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned
counsel would submit that the statutory notice is an encyclopaedia of all facts. It
is issued by duly mentioning about the RTGS payment and the cheque being
issued in discharge of the said liability. It is true that earlier two cheques were
issued, but once reply notice was received, the re-joinder notice were issued duly
admitting the same and that should not, in any manner, non-suit the complainant.
In fact, the details are categorically mentioned in the complaint and also in the
chief evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the trial Court erred in placing
heavy reliance on the omission in the statutory notice itself. The trial Court failed
to consider that the complainant has duly marked the bank statement to prove that
the amount has been transferred by way of RTGS and the cheque has been issued
and the signature in the cheque is not denied by the accused. Therefore, the
complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, by proving the
advancement of the money to the accused and the signature of the accused is not
denied in the cheque and the complainant is also armed with the presumption and
therefore, the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
7. The learned Counsel further would submit that the trial court erred in
believing the version of DW-1. The complainant has duly cross examined DW-1.
In fact, DW-1 has admitted that the cheque was issued by the accused only in
discharge of his liability and the same forms part of the cross examination. Even
thereafter, the accused side did not make any re-examination to clarify things.
Therefore, when the defence evidence himself has spoken against the very
defence theory, coupled with the fact that the complainant has discharged his
initial onus, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent /
accused would submit that the piece of evidence that is relied upon by the learned
counsel for the complainant should not read in isolation and the next sentence
will clarify that, it was an improper recording of what is being spoken by the
evidence and it cannot be said that DW-1 has categorically admitted that there
was a loan transaction. Secondly, it can be seen that the accused has rebutted the
presumption by cross-examining the complainant, admitting that on the same day
of the amount being paid, there was a transaction of purchase of plots. When it is
pleaded by DW-1 and also the accused that the accused did not have any direct
dealing with the complainant and he was only the friend of DW-1, nothing is
mentioned on behalf of the complainant to prove the transaction or the friendship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
as pleaded. Further, it can be seen that the cheques were issued only as security
and when the transaction has gone through and the sale deeds were given in
favour of the complainant and thereafter the complainant had no right to fill up
the cheque and present the same. The reply notice itself has been duly issued
categorically taking the said position.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
10. Even though, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued
about the defence that if Chakravarthy, the accused, is only the friend of the
DW-1, the very fact that whether he would have issued six cheques, that too
blank cheques, without filling up only as security towards the payment of a sum
of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the registration charges is doubtful, still the case of the
complainant in a criminal case should stand on its own and cannot get fortified
by the weakness of the defence of the accused.
11. In this case, the complainant case is one of hand loan. It can be seen
that when the loan is said to have been given in the month of March 2014, it is
the further version of the complainant that two cheques totally amounting to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
Rs.10,00,000/- was issued in the month of October itself, by asking the
complainant to present the cheque and take the entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
and pay the balance to the accused. It is there, the complainant case gets
doubtful. Further doubt arises, because the complainant did not even mention
about those two cheques with the earliest point of time in the statutory notice.
Though the statutory notice is not an encyclopaedia of facts, still the doubt arises
only because of the version of the complainant that the accused would issue
cheques a in excess of his liability and direct the complainant to withdraw the
amount and pay the balance to the accused.
12. In such scenario, the trial Court taking into consideration the omission
of the complainant in not mentioning about the two cheques issued earlier and
further taking the date of real estate transaction coinciding exactly with the date
of RTGS transfer cannot be said to be a perverse view or an impossible view and
in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is unable to upturn the said findings of
the trial Court. Accordingly, finding no merits, the Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed.
03.11.2025
smv
Neutral citation : Yes/No
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
smv
To:
The learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal.
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:41 pm )
