Madras High Court
M/S.Redington (India) Ltd vs Mr.Neeraj Verma on 12 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.872 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.872 of 2012
M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.,
Represented herein by
Mr.S.Srinivasan,
Male: aged about:- 41,
Sr.Manager - Credit,
SPL Guindy House,
No.95, Mount Road,
Cuindy-600 032. ... Appellant
Vs
Mr.Neeraj Verma,
Proprietor,
M/s.R.S.Enterprises,
No.81, Industrial Area,
Shaguli, Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh-173 219. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to set-aside the judgment dated 21.09.2012 in C.C.No.2410/2007
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III,
Saidapet, Chennai and convict the respondent/accused for the offence u/s 138
Negotiable Instruments Act and grant compensation for the amount covered
under the cheque.
For Appellant : Mr.V.T.Narendiran
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
Crl.A.No.872 of 2012
For Respondent : Mr.R.Surya Prakash,
Legal Aid Counsel
ORDER
The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint against the
respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 in C.C.No.2410 of 2007 before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Saidapet, Chennai (trial Court) and the
same was dismissed by judgment dated 21.09.2012, against which, the
present Criminal Appeal is filed.
2.Since there was no representation for the respondent/accused, this
Court by order dated 05.04.2024 appointed Mr.S.Vignesh Kumar as Legal
Aid Counsel/Amicus Curiae for the respondent. However, he was not present
for further hearings. Hence, this Court by order dated 05.06.2024 appointed
Mr.R.Surya Prakash as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.
3.Gist of the case is that the appellant/complainant engaged in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
business of distribution of computer, computer peripherals and related
products of various multinational companies, in the name of M/s.Redington
(India) Limited. The respondent/accused is the Proprietor of
M/s.R.S.Enterprises who placed orders with the appellant Company for
purchase of HP Deskjet, Laser Jet Printers, APC, UPS and MSOF Software
etc. The products supplied under the cover of Invoices Ex.P1 to P6. In
discharge of liability for the products purchased, the respondent issued
cheque (Ex.P7) for a sum of Rs.5,95,990/-. When the cheque (Ex.P7)
presented with the complainant Bankers, the same returned by return memo
dated 26.04.2006 for the reason “Payment stopped by the Drawer” which
communicated to the appellant on 05.05.2006, thereafter, statutory notice
(Ex.P15) issued to the respondent on 15.07.2006. The respondent received
the statutory notice (Ex.P15) and sent a reply notice (Ex.P16) with false
allegations, ignoring the reply, the appellant filed a case in C.C.No.2410 of
2007. During trial, Assistant Manager of the complainant Company
examined as PW1, through him, Exs.P1 to P23 marked. On the side of
defence, two witnesses DW1 & DW2 examined and Exs.D1 to D12 marked.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court
failed to consider the evidence and materials produced by the appellant. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
this case, the relationship between the appellant and respondent not denied
and it is a commercial transaction. The goods supplied under the cover of
Invoices (Exs.P2 to P6), in discharge of liability, the cheque (Ex.P7) issued.
Neither the signature in Ex.P7 nor issuance of cheque (Ex.P7) denied, hence,
presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
comes into play. The trial Court nowhere in the judgment referred to
dislodging statutory presumption. Merely based on the reply notice (Ex.P9)
trial Court giving a finding that respondent probablized his defence, is not
proper. In fact, in this case, the respondent though examined himself as
DW1, but he deposed that the cheque issued in advance as security and, both
the respondent and his wife had businesses with the appellant and the cheque
(Ex.P7) misused by the appellant.
5.The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is the
Proprietor of M/s.R.S Enterprises and his wife is the Proprietor of M/s.Balaji
Infotech Services, and the respondent was running both entities. The
respondent in pre-emptive issued notice dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.P15) to the
appellant claiming payments already made for the goods supplied, five
security cheques received as security, one of the cheques misused, liability
discharged by way of bank guarantee 03/05 and his wife discharged her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
liability by way of bank guarantee 10/2005. This was refuted by way of
rejoinder (Exs.P17 & P18) by the appellant. Further, the appellant produced
Exs.P21 to P23 to confirm the letter issued by the respondent accepting
liability, hence, the explanation given by the respondent stands exposed, but
the trial Court placing undue reliance on the evidence of DW1 and Exs.D1 to
D12 gives a finding that the amount due to the appellant a sum of
Rs.49,50,000/- discharged by way of bank guarantee 03/05 on 20.07.2005
and, thereafter bank guarantee of Rs.40,00,000/- was renewed and the cheque
formed part of the bank guarantee utilized, is on a wrong understanding. The
trial Court holding that the appellant taken advantage of two businesses with
the respondent and his wife, misused the cheque (Ex.P7), is not proper. He
further submitted that once signed cheque is issued, it gives an authority and
mandate for the holder of the cheque to fill up the same. The learned counsel
for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir
Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138. In view of
the above, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and to be set aside.
6.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant
misused one of the five security cheques given earlier during the business
transaction. The business transaction between the appellant and respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
covered by invoices (Exs.P2 to P6). The respondent produced Ex.D1 series
to confirm the business transaction with the appellant and by notice dated
28.04.2006, the appellant informed the respondent that the liability of the
respondent and his wife discharged and the security cheque becomes stale.
He further submitted that notice of the appellant was immediately responded
by sending reply notice on 07.06.2006 (Ex.P16). Further, the respondent
produced the bank guarantees (Exs.D3 & D4) for Rs.49,50,000/- and
Rs.40,00,000/-. The respondent by producing Exs.D1 to D12 clearly refuted
the contention of the appellant and probablized his defence. The respondent
gave stop payment notice to the bank since already the cheque amount paid
and liability discharged. The respondent also examined the Bank Manager
DW2 and marked bank statement as Ex.D12.
7.The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent by demand
draft No.094027 dated 05.01.2005 for Rs.9,00,000/-, demand draft
No.094028 dated 05.01.2006 for Rs.9,00,000/-, demand draft No.094026
dated 05.01.2006 is Rs.9,00,000/- and demand draft No.094029 dated
05.01.2006 is Rs.5,75,805/-, had proved discharge of his liability of
Rs.32,75,805/-. Further, by way of two demand drafts of Rs.4,05,173/- and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
Rs1,90,817/-, the cheque amount of Rs.5,95,990/- discharged. In this
background, the trial Court referring to Ex.P10 and also earlier notice of the
respondent, dated 28.04.2006, held that the cheque amount was discharged
and the respondent probablized his defence. The appellant sent notice
(Ex.P18) confirms that by utilizing the bank guarantee 3/05, the amount of
Rs.32,75,805/- paid. In Ex.D9, the payment confirmed. Ex.D7 is the
vouchers for Rs.4,05,173/- and Rs.1,90,817/- stands in the name of
M/s.Balaji Infotech Services. When Ex.D2 confronted with the appellant, he
states that he does not know the same. Through Ex.P16 the appellant
confirms that the total business transaction was to the tune of Rs.59,10,226/-,
out of which, the respondent paid Rs.20,38,432/- and the balance amount of
Rs.38,71,795/- paid is confirmed by Exs.D7 & P19. Further, Ex.D7 confirms
the payment of cheque amount. This is the finding of the trial Court and the
trial Court by a well reasoned judgment, acquitted and discharged the
respondent from the case. The appellant is unable to produce any contra
evidence or material to show the finding of the trial Court is perverse needs
interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
9.In this case, the admitted position is that both appellant and
respondent were having business transaction. The goods supplied covered by
the invoices (Exs.P2 to P6) and respondent produced Ex.D1 series confirming
the business transaction with appellant. The payment details were given in
the notice dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.P15). The utilization of bank guarantee
admitted and there have been total transaction to the tune of Rs.59,10,226/-
and the dispute is with regard to cheque amount of Rs.5,95,990/-. From the
defence exhibits and bank guarantee details (Exs.D7 & P19), it is seen that
the respondent discharged the liability and probablized his defence. Further,
issuance of five security cheques not seriously disputed by the appellant.
10.The appellant's contention that the respondent taking advantage of
his wife's business transaction, payments made for that transaction and
claiming discharge of liability for the cheque in this case, is not proper.
Exs.P22 & P23 confirms that it is the respondent who was dealing business
of both M/s.R.S Enterprises and M/s.Balaji Infotech Services, not acceptable.
The Bank Guarantee payments made by demand drafts and statement of
account produced in this case confirms liability to the cheque (Ex.P7)
discharged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
11.The bank guarantee 3/05 confirmed the discharge of business
liability. The respondent examined himself as DW1, Bank Manager as DW2
and marked Exs.D1 to D12 and probablized his defence. The appellant failed
to establish that the respondent had any existing liability to pay the cheque
amount and failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial
Court finding is a well reasoned one, needs no interference.
12.In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the
judgment, dated 21.09.2012 in C.C.No.2410 of 2007 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Saidapet, Chennai.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
12.This Court appreciates Mr.R.Surya Prakash, Legal Aid Counsel for
the respondent for his strenuous efforts in arguing the case.
12.11.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court No.II, Saidapet,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:18:58 pm )
