Madras High Court
Mr.Meiyyan vs Mr.K.Jeyakumar on 10 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL A No. 310 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. 310 of 2022
Mr.MEIYYAN
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Mr.K.Jeyakumar
..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.576 of 2013 dated 20.01.2020 on
the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Perambalur.
For Appellant(s): Ms.C.Sangamithirai
For Respondent(s): Mr.R. Bharath Kumar
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Perambalur dated 20.01.2020 made in S.T.C.No.576 of 2013.
By the said judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is a private
complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 200 of Code of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
Criminal Procedure complaining an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused had prayed for a loan
of sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards purchase of lorry, promising to repay within a
period of one week. After a week, in discharge of the liability, the accused
issued the subject matter cheque dated 26.03.2013 for the said sum of
Rs.10,00,000/-. Upon being presented, the same was returned dishonoured with
an endorsement "insufficient funds". The complainant issued a statutory notice.
The accused did not make any payment within the statutory period nor any reply
notice was issued and hence the complaint was foisted.
3. Upon recording sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file as
S.T.C.No.576 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Perambalur.
Upon issue of summons, furnishing copies and questioning, the accused denied
the allegations. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined
himself as PW1/Meiyyan and one Sivadurai, the Manager of the HDFC Bank,
Perambalur branch was examined as PW2. The original cheque was marked as
Ex.P1, cheque return memo was marked as Ex.P2, the statutory notice was
marked as Ex.P3 and the acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.P4.
4. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence on record
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
as false. Thereafter, one Subramaniyam/father-in-law of the accused was
examined as DW1 and the accused examined himself as DW2. An agreement
deed between the father-in-law of the accused and the complainant was marked
as Ex.D1 and legal notice that was issued was marked as Ex.D2. The trial Court
thereafter considered the case of the parties.
5. The trial Court considered the fact that, when a huge sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- is being advanced and when no other document in support
thereof has been filed, especially when the complainant is said to be in finance
business, the transaction cannot be believed, as the lawful manner in which it is
advanced, is not proved by the complainant before the trial Court and held that
the accused has rebutted the presumption by due cross examination to the level
of preponderance of probability and acquitted the accused. As against which
the appeal is filed.
6. Ms.C.Sangamithirai, learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant
by taking this Court through the evidence on record would submit that this is a
case where the accused had pleaded that he is purchasing a lorry and that he has
applied for a regular bank loan and in the mean while, he wanted urgent cash
and as such a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was advanced. The complainant has
categorically deposed that within 15 days of the borrowal, the accused came
over and repaid the same by presenting the subject matter cheque. The same
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
was duly presented and upon dishonoured, the statutory notice was issued in
time. Not even a reply was issued by the accused. The complaint was taken on
file and the complainant has examined himself and spoken about the liability.
The presumption operates in favour of the complainant. The accused has not
done anything to rebut the presumption. The complainant has withstood the
cross examination. Except for alleging transactions with reference to the father-
in-law of the accused, the accused has not let in any evidence as to why the
cheque was issued and once the signature is admitted and the liability being
spoken by the complainant, the trial Court erred in further insisting on other
proof from the complainant. The same is against the settled law relating to the
offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. Mere raising of doubt is not enough and the rebuttal of presumption, if
any, should be to the level of preponderance of probability and the accused has
not done anything except to come up with a story which was not proven to the
level of preponderance of probability. Therefore, she would submit that this
Court should interfere and upturn the findings as to one of guilty and order the
accused to pay the entire cheque amount.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/accused would submit that in this case the accused has taken a
defence that his father-in-law and the other members of the family had several
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
transactions with the complainant. In fact, the complainant completely burked
the same in the complaint as well as in the statutory notice. The details of the
cases filed etc., have all been given in the DW1's evidence. As a matter of fact,
the complainant threatened to misuse one of the cheques upon being enraged by
the DW1 and the other family members asseting their repayment. This is a case
where financier, misusing each and every document, filing different cases as
against the different members of the family and trying to extract more amount.
The person like the complainant, who's in the finance business will not advance
such a huge amount without proper documentation. The only documentation
that is said to be done in the instant case, being the promissory note is also not
produced by the complainant before the Court. Therefore, the trial Court has
acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of doubt.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either sides and
perused the material records of the case.
10. Firstly, in this case the complainant is admittedly a financier.
Admittedly, upon borrowal of the amount for the purpose of purchase of lorry
the accused is set to have executed a promissory note. The complainant didn't
produced the said promissory note before the trial Court. In spite of specific
cross examination, the same was not done.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
11. Secondly, when a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is being advanced,
in the complaint as well as in the legal notice not even the particulars of the said
lorry said to have been purchased etc., were mentioned. Further, the case of the
accused is that there has been several transactions with the complainant. The
details are categorically mentioned in the cross examination of the complainant
and also in the DW1's evidence. A accumulative reading of the cross
examination of PW1, DW1 and DW2, it can be seen that the case of the accused
is that, while at the time of borrowal of the loan by the father-in-law of the
accused namely DW1, the accused also had given the instant cheque as a
security. The same has been specifically put to the PW1 in the cross
examination. It is not the case of the complainant that the writings in the
cheque namely the name of the complainant or the amount Rs.10,00,000/- or the
date were all written by the accused.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
findings of the trial Court that, in view of the aforesaid evidence i.e., by cross
examining PW1 and also examining DW1 and DW2, the accused had rebutted
the presumption and when the complainant has not let in any further evidence
with reference to the loan, especially, when he is said to have got a promissory
note and the same was not even being produced, the finding of the trial Court
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:57 pm )
cannot be said to be a perverse finding or an implausible view so has to be
upturned in an appeal against acquittal.
13 . 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 )
