Madras High Court
Vallarmathi Finance Rep By Mr.Meiyan vs Mrs.Mariyayee on 10 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL A No. 311 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL A No. 311 of 2022
Vallarmathi Finance Rep By Mr.Meiyan
S/o. (late) Ponnusamy, 130A, Trichy Main Road,
Perambalur Town, Perambalur.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Mrs.MARIYAYEE
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure
to set aside the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.28 of 2017 dated 27.02.2020 on
the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur.
For Appellant(s): Ms.C.Sangamithirai
For Respondent(s): Mrs.Usha Raman
for Mr.R.Venkatesulu
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Perambalur dated 27.02.2020 made in S.T.C.No.28 of 2017.
By the said judgment, the trial court acquitted the respondent/accused for an
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
2. This is a private complaint filed by the complainant complaining an
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case
of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
complainant for her family expenses on 30.03.2016 from the concern viz.,
Vallarmathi Finance run by the complainant. In discharge of the said liability,
the accused issued a cheque dated 18.08.2016 for the said sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
and upon being presented, the same return dishonoured with an endorsement
"account closed" and the complainant therefore issued statutory notice on
27.08.2016, which was received by the accused, however, no payment was
made within the period, neither any reply was issued, hence the private
complaint is filed.
3. Upon recording of sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file in
S.T.C.No. 28 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur.
Upon issue of summons, furnishing copies and questioning, the accused denied
the allegations and stood the trial. In order to bring home the charge, the
complainant examined himself as PW1. The licence issued in respect of the said
Vallarmathi Finance was marked as Ex.P1, the subject matter cheque was
marked as Ex.P2, the photocopy of the return memo of the bank was marked as
Ex.P3, the legal notice was marked as Ex.P4 and the acknowledgement card is
marked as Ex.P5. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence on
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
record the accused denied the same as false. No evidence was let in on behalf
of the defence. The trial Court thereafter considered the case of the parties.
4. The trial Court held that the petitioner/Vallarmathi Finance being a
partnership firm and especially when registration of the partnership firm is not
proved and nothing is mentioned about the other partners, the complaint is not
maintainable. The trial Court further held that when the entire loan was said to
have been advanced as cash and when the accused has cross examined the
complainant and rebutted the presumption, in the absence of further proof, held
that the case of the accused as probable and acquitted the accused. As against
which the present appeal is filed.
5. Ms.Sangamithirai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that merely because the cause-title mentions as
Vallarmathi Finance represented by Mr.Meiyan, the trial Court by itself
concluded that the said finance is a partnership firm, whereas the license
categorically shows that it is only a proprietorship concern. It is not even the
case of the accused that Vallarmathi Finance is a partnership firm. No cross
examination was done in that lines. Therefore, the finding of the trial court is
erroneous in law.
6. Secondly, the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been duly
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
proved. The complainant examined himself and has spoken about the borrowal.
The cheque is duly marked. Though statutory notice was issued, not even a
reply was issued to the statutory notice. The accused has not let in any evidence
in support of their case that only as a security the cheque was issued. Not even
the documents relating to the borrowal of the said loan or documents relating to
the discharge of the said loan is produced by the accused. In the absence of the
same, mere raising of doubt by difference cannot be enough and in the scheme
of the law relating to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the trial Court ought to have seen that the presumption
operates in favour of the complainant and ought to have convicted the accused.
7. Per contra, Ms. Usha Raman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Mr.R.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the respondent/the accused by taking
this Court through the cross examination of PW1 would submit that the
admittedly PW1 is a financier. It is his evidence in cross examination that even
before the amount was repaid, he has given back the promissory note. The said
statement is absolutely unbelievable. By due cross examination, the accused
has proved a probable version that the cheque was given only as a security
towards the borrowal from the 3rd party and the same is now being misused.
8. The learned counsel would point out that in this case PW1 was even
prosecuted for charging usurious interest and was arrested in that case. Learned
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
counsel would submit that the complainant is in the habit of filling up the
cheques, presenting the same and foisting cases against innocent persons and
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
records of the case.
10. Admittedly, the complainant is a financier. It is his statement that he
has returned the pro-note to the accused even before realizing the money is per
se unbelievable. Secondly, the complainant is accepting only a cheque. Being a
financier, the least that is expected of him is to get a cheque duly filled in by the
accused. In this case, the cheque is a bearer cheque and admittedly the
signature is in a different ink and the particulars are filled up by a different
person. Therefore, the case of the complainant per se is unbelievable.
11. The case of the accused is that she had left the blank cheque as
security and thereafter the said loan was repaid. Therefore, though the findings
regarding the partnership firm etc., cannot be sustained, when the accused has
made out of a probable case by cross examination, I am of the view that the
accused rebutted the presumption to the level of preponderance of probability
and in the absence of any further proof from the complainant, the ultimate
conclusion of the trial Court giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, it cannot
be said to be an implausible view or a perverse view in an appeal against
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
acquittal and the same cannot be upturned and accordingly finding no merits,
the appeal stands dismissed.
10-11-2025
Neutral Citation: No
mpl
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
mpl
10-11-2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
