Madras High Court
M/S.Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Co vs D.Sukumar on 18 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022
M/s.Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Co., (P)
Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Person,
Harikrishnan .. Appellant
Versus
D.Sukumar .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records and judgment acquitting the respondent/accused in
C.C.No.298 of 2016, dated 28th March, 2017 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level – II,
Coimbatore, and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Rakesh Kumar
for Mr.L.Rajasekar
For Respondent : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
Crl.A.No.1098 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore, dated 28.03.2017
made in C.C.No.298 of 2016. By the said judgment, the Trial Court
acquitted the respondent/accused of an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging an offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of
the appellant/complainant is that it is a private limited Company engaged
in the business of conducting chit transactions and businesses incidental
thereto. The respondent/accused is a subscriber in one of the chits in
Group No.J2G vide ticket No.0934/JMM/08 and the total chit value was
Rs.3,00,000/-. The chit was spread over for a period of 20 months and the
monthly subscription was Rs.15,000/-. The respondent/accused was
declared as the successful bidder and was paid the entire chit amount.
However, he committed default in paying the monthly subscriptions and
he owed a total sum of Rs.1,86,752/- which included the monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
subscriptions and the interest thereon. Accordingly, the
respondent/accused issued a cheque on 06.02.2013 in discharge of the said
liability. Upon presenting the same, the same returned dishonoured and
thereafter, the statutory notice was issued since there is no payment and
the respondent/accused had only issued a reply notice containing false
particulars. After issuing the rejoinder notice, the complaint was filed.
3. Upon recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on
file and summons were issued to the respondent/accused. Upon furnishing
of copies and questioning, the respondent/accused denied the imputations
and stood trial. On behalf of the the appellant/complainant Company, one
Harikrishnan was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 were marked.
Upon being questioned about the incriminating circumstances and
material evidence on record, the respondent/accused denied the same as
false. Thereafter, the respondent/accused examined himself as D.W.1 and
the Ex.D-1, chit passbook was marked on behalf of the
respondent/accused. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties.
The Trial Court took into consideration that the appellant/complainant
Company did not mark any statement of accounts to prove the balance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
outstanding. The Trial Court further held that the amount, as claimed by
the appellant/complainant Company, is not reflected as such in the chit
passbook, Ex.D-1, which is admittedly issued by the
appellant/complainant Company. In view thereof, the Trial Court believed
the version of the respondent/accused that he only issued the cheque as a
security and the same is being filled up and used by the
appellant/complainant, as probable and held that since there is a doubt as
to the liability, benefit of doubt should be given to the respondent/accused.
4. Mr.P.Rakesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the
appellant/complainant would submit that even as per Ex.D-1, it can be
seen from the last page that only a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- is entered as paid.
Even though, the learned Counsel would contend that it can be seen that
every page of the passbook has been subsequently verified by the officials
of the appellant/complainant Company and the exact details are finally
entered along with the initials of the official. The last page is yet to be
verified. Even then, as per the version of the respondent/accused,
Rs.2,09,000/- was only paid and as per the version of the Company also,
the principal amount due is Rs.91,400/- and when the subsequent interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
is calculated, it comes exactly for the amount for which the cheque was
issued. Thus, even without producing the statement of accounts, the
appellant/complainant has demonstrated that the liability is due. When the
signature in the cheque is not disputed and when the ingredients of the
offence are proved, the Trial Court ought to have held that the
appellant/complainant is armed with the presumption under Sections 139
and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and ought to have
convicted the respondent/accused.
5. It must be seen that the respondent/accused, even though issued a
reply notice that he has settled the amount in the year 2009 itself, has not
done anything for the past four years to reclaim the cheque. On top of it,
on a perusal of the Ex.D-1, it can be seen that there is an entry of payment
of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2012, which is also admitted by D.W.1 in the
cross-examination. Therefore, the entire case of the appellant/complainant
is probable and the respondent/accused has not succeeded in rebutting the
presumption. The offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
Counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.
7. There is no dispute that the respondent/accused was a subscriber
in a chit. Upon perusing the Ex.D-1 and notice thereof, nothing could be
made out. Though entries were made in several rows and columns, it is
stated that no prescribed format is followed and this Court is unable to
decipher anything from the same. Even in the last page, there is a note
that as on 07.06.2018, the balance amount is Rs.51,000/- and
subsequently, payments have been received. According to the
respondent/accused, he has discharged the entire liability and for that also,
there is no endorsement in the book. The last column in the page No.10 is
sought to be explained as the total amount paid and if the same is to be
cross checked with the other column, there is as an endorsement as to how
much is the amount that the respondent/accused is due and liable to pay in
respect of every subscription and how much he is paying. There is no
such entry in the said passbook. Therefore, nothing can be made out from
the passbook. However, by producing the same, when the
respondent/accused claims that the entire liability is discharged and cross-
examined the P.W.1, even at that stage, no statement of accounts were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
forthcoming from the side of the appellant/complainant Company. When
the respondent/accused has duly rebutted the case of the
appellant/complainant by marking Ex.D-1 and by probabilising the
defence, it was for the appellant/complainant to have let in further
evidence in support of the claim that there was a legally enforceable
liability of the amount of the cheque that is for a sum of Rs.1,86,762/-. In
the absence of the same, findings of the Trial Court, giving benefit of
doubt to the respondent/accused, cannot be said to be perverse findings or
an impossible.
8. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed.
18.11.2025
Neutral Citation : no
grs
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level – II,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 01:54:14 pm )
