Madras High Court
R.Srinivasan vs U.Dhanraj on 19 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.403 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.403 of 2022
R.Srinivasan ...Appellant
Vs.
U.Dhanraj ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code,
pleased to set aside the judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate I, Kanchipuram District at Kanchipuram in S.T.C.No,12 of 2019 and
consequently order in convicting the respondent in accordance to law and thus
render justice.
For Appellant :
Mr.R.Jaganathan
For Respondent :
M/s.V.Alamelu
Legal Aid counsel
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Kancheepuram, dated 29.11.2021 made in S.T.C.No.12 of 2019.
2.By the said judgment the trial Court had acquitted the respondent of an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This is a private
complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
3.The case of the complainant is that the complainant was doing contract
works and the accused was a friend of him having upon introduced through his
relative E.Ponmozhi. Taking advantage of the said friendship the accused had
approached the complainant many times seeking a loan of Rs.5,60,000/- to meet
his urgent family needs. As the accused pestered the complainant repeatedly by
taking a sympathetic view, the complainant lent a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- on
10.11.2017 as cash. On the same day, the accused in discharge of his liability
issued two post dated cheques that is, cheque bearing No.000014 dated
07.11.2018 drawn for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and another cheque bearing
No.000013 dated 16.11.2018 drawn for Rs.3,10,000/-. This apart in consideration
thereof, the accused also executed a promissory note on the same day. When the
cheques were presented for collection by the complainant the same returned
dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Accordingly, the statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
notice was issued to the accused. The accused neither paid the amount nor issued
any reply. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. The complaint was taken on file
upon recording of sworn statement. Upon issue of summons, copies and
questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood trial.
4.In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as
P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. During the course of cross-examination
Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of accused. When the accused was questioned about
the incriminating materials and circumstances on record, the accused denied the
same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The
trial Court considered the case of the parties. The trial Court considered the
answers of the P.W.1 in the cross-examination wherein, he admitted that in the
year 2010, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was advanced as loan and thereafter execution
of yet another promissory note in Ex.D1 in the year 2016 and held that the
version of the accused seems to be probable and gave the benefit of doubt to the
accused and acquitted him.
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
that firstly the complainant has duly discharged his owners by presenting the
cheque and by marking the cheque, dishonoured memo, issuing of the statutory
notice and the acknowledge card to buttress the advancement of loan, the
promissory note was also marked. Therefore, for the promissory note as well as
for the cheques in question, the presumption under Section 118 and 113 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, come into play. The accused had not let in any
evidence except to cross examine the complainant. In the cross examination the
complainant has admitted that there was an earlier borrowal for a sum of
Rs.2,10,000/- when that is a different transaction that has got no bearing
whatsoever on the present complaint. Similarly, even the promissory note dated
19.12.2016 is produced by the accused himself. Therefore, that has got no
meaning at all for the trial Court to consider the same. Therefore, the accused has
not done anything to rebut the presumption much less to the level of
preponderance of probability. In view thereof, the learned counsel would submit
that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere and upturn the finding into one of
guilt and punish the accused. The learned counsel would also pointed out two
subject matter cheques and submit that the accused himself by his own
handwriting had written the amount both in letters and numbers by himself which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
would further buttress the case of the complainant.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/accused would submit that the case of the complainant in the
complaint is as if on 10.11.2017, the accused has borrowed the sum of
Rs.5,60,000/- as cash, whereas the perusal of the cross-examination it would be
clear that the complainant has admitted that there was a borrowal of Rs.2,10,000/-
in the year 2010. It is when further the accused has cross-examined about the
payment of sum of Rs.72,000/-, the complainant had denied the same. In any
event, it is the case of the accused that only at the time of the said borrowal, the
unfilled forms of pronote as well as the cheques were issued. Further it can be
seen that promissory note was also executed further for exactly the same amount
of Rs.5,60,000/- in the year 2016 and the same is also admitted by the
complainant. The complainant did not make any further explanation with
reference to the earlier transaction and repayment etc., of the same. In view
thereof, the entire case as projected by the complainant is false and therefore the
trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt.
7.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
the material records of the case.
8.In this case, the complainant has marked the cheque and promissory note
corroborating the borrowal and the statutory notice also issued and as such
discharged his initial onus and therefore there is a presumption that the cheque is
issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It has to be seen whether the
accused has rebutted the presumption to the extent of preponderance of
probability and has raised any doubt in the case of the complainant as the further
documents of promissory note is also marked in the instant case. The original
case of the complainant in the complaint is that he advanced the sum of
Rs.5,60,000/- on 10.11.2017 as cash. The said stand is taken in the statutory
notice. However, in the chief-examination, eventhough it is stated that the amount
is borrowed on 10.11.2017, it is also mentioned as the borrowal was in
installments (gy jtizfshf). Therefore, a different stand is being taken in the proof
affidavit. In the cross-examination the complainant P.W.1 admits that there was a
borrowal of Rs.2,10,000/- in the year 2010. Similarly he also admits that a
promissory note was executed by the accused in his favour on 19.12.2016 for the
very sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. In this context there was no explanation either in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
chief-examination or in the complaint or by way of re-examination whether all the
three transactions were different transactions or one and the same. When the
transactions of borrowing a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- is admitted and thereafter in the
year 2016, a promissory note was executed for Rs.5,60,000/-. It appears as if the
amount was advanced in the year 2010 and the balance outstanding including the
interest and principal was taken into account totally and was capitalised as
Rs.5,60,000/- and a promissory note was executed in the year 2016. It seems that
since the years were passing by one more promissory note was executed in the
year 2017. The Court can see that there is some balance outstanding by the
accused to the complainant. However, the complainant's case that the amount
itself was advanced as a loan as cash on 10.11.2017 is doubtful and accused has
not only rebutted the presumption and has created a doubt in the very case of the
complainant to the level of preponderance of probability and accordingly the
finding of the trial Court in holding that the presumption is rebutted and granting
benefit of doubt to the accused cannot be said to be a perverse or ann implausible
view so as to upturn in an appeal against acquittal.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
9. Accordingly, finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed.
19.11.2025
ep
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Note:- Fees of the legal aid counsel shall be disbursed as per the norms.
To
The Judicial Magistrate I, Kanchipuram District.
Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:09:17 pm )
