Madras High Court
M.S.Navaneethakrishna vs A.Gopala Krishna on 13 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
AND
CRL A NO. 718 OF 2022
1. M.S.Navaneethakrishna
S/o. V.Mahadevan, rep by his power
agent / father V.Mahadevan, no.1,
Chinasamy nagar, Kanchipuram Town
and Taluk.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. A.Gopala Krishna
S/O. Annamalai, Plot No.67, Mohan
Kumaramangalam Street, Narasimma
Pallava Nagar, orikkai, Kanchipuram
Town and Taluk.
Respondent(s)
CRL A No. 718 of 2022
1. M.S.Navaneethakrishna
S/o.V.Mahadevan, Rep By His Power
Agent / Father V.Mahadevan, No.1,
Chinasamy Nagar, Kanchipuram Town
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
And Tk.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. A.Annamalai
S/o.Arunachalam, No.67, Railway
Road, Kanchipuram Town And Tk.
Respondent(s)
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
PRAYER
To allow the Criminal Appeal and set aside the order of Judgement of Acquittal
dated 20.04.2021 by Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram in
CC.No.229 of 2017 and pass such any or other order as this Honble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
CRL A No. 718 of 2022
PRAYER
To allow the Criminal Appeal in Setaside the order of Judgement of Acquittal
dated 20.04.2021 by Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram in CC
No.228 of 2017 and pass such any or other order as this Honble Court.
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
For Appellant(s): M/s.K.M.Balaji
L.Jammuna Rani
For Respondent(s): M/s.K.G.Senthilkumar
S.Vinoth Kumar
M.Suresh Sankar Counsel For
Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
CRL A No. 710 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are connected and were filed by the same complainant
against the father and son and as such, a common judgment was rendered by the
trial Court and accordingly these appeals are also dealt with by way of this
common judgment.
2. These are private complaints filed by the complainant under Section
200 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging offences punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The case of the complainant is that
he is a physiotherapist. The accused in CC.No.228 of 2017 namely Annamalai is
the father who was running a tea stall in the name of Anandhi Tea stall. The son
who was the accused in CC.No.229 of 2017 namely A.Gopala Krishna was in
transport business. The father who was in need of fund for his business,
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.03.2016 by executing a promissory note
agreeing to repay the same along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per
annum. On the next day that is on 06.03.2016, once again the father borrowed
another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same along with 12% simple
interest per annum and executed another promissory note.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
3. On 01.08.2016, the son who has been doing transport business had
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same along with simple
interest at the rate of 12% per annum and executed a promissory note. On the
next day, that is 02.08.2016, the son borrowed yet another sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 12%
per annum.
4. In discharge of their liabilities for paying the principal and interest, on
12.07.2017, the father issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,48,000/- and the son
issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,33,000/-. On the same day, that is on
12.07.2017, both the cheques were presented for collection and the same has
been returned dishonoured with the endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. A
statutory notice was issued on 20.07.2017 in both cases. In both the cases, the
accused have received the same and did not make any payment, however,
issued a reply notice on 07.08.2017, as such the complaints were filed.
Accordingly, upon recording of sworn statements, the complaints were taken on
file as CC.Nos.228 and 229 of 2017. Upon issue of summons and furnished
copies of questioning, the accused denied the same. Apart from the denial, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
had also made a statement while answering the question. Thereafter, in order to
bring home the charges in CC.No.228 of 2017, the complainant’s father
V.Mahadevan, being the power agent of the complainant M.Navaneetha Krishna
was examined as P.W.1 and the complainant was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on
record, the accused denied the same and also made a statement explaining their
stand. Thereafter, one Kumaran Arul was examined as D.W.1. The Bank
Manager, Vijay Prasad was examined as D.W.2 and the accused examined
himself as D.W.3. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 being the bank statement of
the accused was marked. In the another case also, that is in CC.No.229 of 2017,
identical exercise was done as Mahadevan and Navaneetha Krishnan was
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked and on behalf
of the accused Kumaran Arun, Vijay Prasad and the accused himself were
examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Ex.D.1 being the bank statement of
Gopalakrishna the accused was marked. Therefafter, the trial court considered
the arguments in both cases. The trial court found that in this case, the allegation
of the complainant is advancing the amounts by way of cash. Secondly, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
considered the fact that all the transactions were identical that is Rs.1,50,000/-
each on the next day, that is said to have been borrowed by the father and son on
their respective occasions. Similarly the cheque was also said to have been
given on the same day and in that context when the accused has cross examined
the complainant and it is their case that the cheque and the pronote which was
given on behalf of kumaran Arul for borrowal of lesser amount of which major
amount has been paid by Kumaran arul is said to be misused and specially when
the promissory note is admitted to be filled up by the complainant himself and
the details in the cheque is also filled by third parties. The trial Court held that
the case of the accused seems to be probable and given the benefit of doubt to
the accused and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal is
filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would place
strong reliance on the answers given by the respective accused. In questioning
when initially copies were furnished and the accused Gopala Krishna was
questioned, his answer was that he did not even know the complainant. The
cheque was fabricated and he did not have any necessity to take the loan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
Similarly, the accused Annamalai had answered that it is a false case and that he
has kept the cheque duly signed in his shop. He did not know how the cheque
came to be with the complainant and stated that the case is false, however
during the cross examination of the complainant, though the new case as if one
kumaran Arul had borrowed the amount and only through him, the cheques and
the pronotes that were given by both the accused is being misused was the stand
taken. Even after cross examination, when the accused Navaneetha Krishna was
questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he answered
that he did not know the complainant, he did not borrow the amount from the
complainant, he did not give the promissory note. The signature in Ex.P.3 does
not belongs to him. He did not give the cheque to the complainant. Even in the
signature in the promissory note, it does not appear to be belonging to him. He
is running a tea stall and for running the tea stall he has obtained loan by
Thandal system and to repay the same, he will always keep blank cheques. He
doubts that one of such cheque is being misused by the complainant. Since he
did not give the cheque, he did not keep any balance in the bank and as such the
case is a false case. Similarly, Annamalai in his 313 questioning would make a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
statement that he does not know the complainant, he did not borrow, he did not
execute the promissory note, he did not give Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 to the
complainant. He had obtained loan from several persons on Thandal. He has
kept the blank cheque forms for the said purposes, he has not given the cheque
to the complainant and those blank cheques are being misused by the
complainant and the case is a false case. Thus, the learned counsel would submit
that the accused would blow hot and blow cold and therefore their entire
defence has to be disbelieved and on the part of the complainant, the
complainant has duly presented the cheque as marked the promissory note in
support of the borrowal which would evidence the borrowal. Once the
complainant has proved the ingredients of section 138 coupled with the
supporting document in the form of promissory note, the presumption under the
Negotiable Instruments Act under section 18 of the Act is applicable and also
the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would
arise in favour of the complainant. The accused has not done anything to rebut
the presumption by letting in any cogent evidence or bringing in any defense
evidence so as to rebut or cause a doubt in the case of the complainant. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
absence thereof, the trial court should have convicted the complainant.
6. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the accused would
point out the cross examination of the complainant. He would submit that the
complainant has not even stated anything about how he was acquainted with the
accused in the complaint. The entire case of the complainant that identical
amounts were borrowed on the consecutive days and cheques being given in an
identical fashion and promissory notes on all four occasions being given in an
identical fashion before the same witnesses, all raise a doubt and will only point
out to the only conclusion that all the four pronotes and the two cheques are
being filled up by the complainant and the case is being foisted against the
accused. He further submit that the accused has also issued due reply notice in
which, they have categorically mentioned about their stand. He would further
submit that the concerned person namely Kumaran Arul was also examined as a
defence witness who spoke about the fact that because he was not believed by
the complainant, he had to get the cheque and promissory note of the accused.
The complainant himself admits in the box that he only filled up the promissory
note even with reference to the cheque, he suddenly turns around and says that a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
person who accompanied the accused only filled up the cheque, the said detail
was not mentioned earlier in the chief examination or in any other particulars.
Therefore the trial court was right in granting the benefit of doubt to the
accused.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the accused had taken a slightly
different stands during the questioning and during the cross examination and in
the defence evidence. Therefore, having taken different stands on why they had
given cheques and the Promissory notes and even in the statutory notice they
did not reveal their defence. They have simply taken a position that they were
shocked and surprised to see the notice and that they do not know the
complainant and they did not borrow the amount from the complainant. Be that
as it may, in the private complaint that is filed by the complainant/Appellant it is
the duty of the complainant to discharge the initial onus and the defense of the
accused becomes relevant only for the rebuttal of the presumption. In this case,
the manner in which the amount is said to have been advanced that is on two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
occasions. on the consecutive 2 days and for similar amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- is
taken into account. The answers given by the complainant in advancing such
amounts on the consecutive days are considered. Secondly. it can be seen that
on 4 occasions when the promissory notes were said to have been written, in an
identical manner, the same attesting witness were said to be present. The
answers that are given by the complainant in respect their presence in the cross
examination is also considered. The complainant in his cross examination
admitted that it is the complainant who has filled up all the promissory notes.
Similarly with reference to the issue of cheque also the complainant did not
assert that it is the accused who was filled up the cheque and in an evasive
manner answered that somebody who came along with the accused only filled
up the particulars in the cheque.
8. In view of the above, when learned counsel for the appellant relies on
the promissory note and the cheques given by the accused, when the
complainant was at variance by way of the above answers in the cross
examination, I am of the view that unless the complainant comes up with a firm
case, with reference to the borrowal execution of the promissory note and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
handing over of the cheque, it cannot be said that the complainant has
discharged even his initial onus. Therefore dehors the absolute weakness of the
case of the accused, the complainant in case is wobbly by itself and as such this
is not a case where the learned counsel can argue that the presumption has
arisen in the favour of the complainant and that it was not rebutted to the level
of preponderance of probabilities by the accused. Accordingly in the said
circumstances when the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused,
the same cannot be said to be an impossible view or a perverse view so as to be
upturned in an appeal against acquittal and accordingly finding no merits, the
appeal stands dismissed.
13-11-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Kanchipuram.
2. A.Gopala Krishna
S/O. Annamalai, Plot No.67, Mohan
Kumaramangalam Street, Narasimma
Pallava Nagar, orikkai, Kanchipuram
Town and Taluk.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I,
Kanchipuram.
2. A.Annamalai
S/o.Arunachalam, No.67, Railway
Road, Kanchipuram Town And Tk.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
shl
AND CRL A NO. 718 OF
13-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/11/2025 07:16:32 pm )
