Madras High Court
P.Vellingiri vs N.Mahalingam on 25 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.165 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.165 of 2022
P.Vellingiri,
S/o.Palani,
Proprietor, M/s.P.V.Traders,
No.2, Ellappa Naicker Thottam,
P.N.Pudur, Coimbatore 641041. ... Petitioner
Vs.
N.Mahalingam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore by judgment in C.A.No.161 of 2020
dated 15.12.2021 as confirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate
FTC No.I @ ML, Coimbatore in C.C.No.268 of 2017 dated 23.07.2020
sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to
pay a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant within 2 months and
in default to undergo imprisonment for the period of 2 months under Section
357(3) Cr.P.C and acquit the accused.
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.165 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gnana Banu
For Respondent : Ms.T.Kalpana Devi for
Mr.V.Sivakumar
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 23.07.2020 in
C.C.No.268 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I @
ML, Coimbatore (trial Court) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- to the respondent
within two months in default to undergo two months imprisonment.
Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.161 of
2020 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram
(lower appellate Court) and the same was dismissed by judgment dated
15.12.2021 confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the
same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
2.Gist of the case is that the respondent is the Proprietor of Flour Mill
situated at Ganapathy, Coimbatore. The petitioner and his friends Sivakumar
and Elangovan got introduced with the respondent ten years ago in their
Auditor R.V.Ramaiya's office and projected that they were dealing and selling
building materials. The respondent became friendly with the petitioner. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
that acquittance, the petitioner requested the respondent to lend a loan of
Rs.11,00,000/- for his urgent expenses on 25.04.2015 to rebuild his business
and to come out of the entanglement and agreed to repay the loan by disposing
one of his properties. The wife of the petitioner pleaded to help her husband
and sought for loan. Since the respondent was having only Rs.3,00,000/- on
his hand, on that day another Rs.8,00,000/- mobilized from his friend
Nagarajan and gave a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- on 25.04.2015 to the petitioner.
On that day, the petitioner executed a promissory note (Ex.P1) agreeing to
repay the loan amount @12% p.a. In discharge of liability, the petitioner
issued a cheque (Ex.P2) dated 28.07.2016 bearing No.740898 for
Rs.11,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, GKNM Branch in favour of the
respondent. Since the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount, the
respondent gave a complaint to the Police. On 11.07.2016, enquiry
conducted, at that time, the petitioner made an endorsement that it is purely a
cheque dispute, he is ready to face the case in the Court, thereafter, the
complaint closed. When the cheque (Ex.P2) presented for encashment on
28.07.2016 in Corporation Bank, GKNM Branch, Coimbatore, the same
returned unpaid for the reason “Account Closed” by return memo dated
30.07.2016. Thereafter, the respondent issued statutory notice (Ex.P4) dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
01.08.2016 to the petitioner which was received by him on 03.08.2016. But
the petitioner neither sent any reply nor repaid the cheque amount. Following
the procedure, the complaint filed before the trial Court.
3.During trial, on the side of the complainant, three witnesses examined
as PW1 to PW3 and seven documents marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of
the defence, the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked chit fund
passbook as Ex.D1. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the
petitioner which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court as stated above.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent
admits in his complaint in paragraph No.6 that the cheque (Ex.P2) issued was
a security cheque and further the respondent received a promissory note
(Ex.P1). That being so, the respondent ought to have filed a civil suit to
recover the loan amount with interest, but not taken any steps to file a civil
suit and the promissory note marked in this case as Ex.P1. The respondent
projecting a civil dispute into criminal case, lodged a Police complaint and the
Police called him for enquiry on 11.07.2014, which is admitted in the
complaint at paragraph No.8. This shows that the respondent is using force by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
all means to fleece the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent
admits that he was running an indigenous chit and the petitioner was a
Subscriber to the chit. For the chit transaction, the petitioner gave blank
signed cheque (Ex.P2) and promissory note (Ex.P1). Despite completion of
chit transaction, the respondent not returned Exs.P1 & P2, filled up the same
and projected a case as though the petitioner issued cheque (Ex.P2) for
discharging his liability of Rs.11,00,000/-. The respondent admits that there
were variations in the writings and to the signature in the cheque (Ex.P2),
which confirms that the respondent misused the blank signed cheque. Further,
the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked the chit fund passbook
(Ex.D1) and probablized his defence. The respondent failed to prove that he
had such huge amount of Rs.11,00,000/- with him to extend loan to the
petitioner which the trial Court failed to consider. The burden of proof
required only a preponderance of probability, which the petitioner had
discharged. Both the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court not
considered the evidence and materials in proper and mechanically dismissed
the complaint. Hence, he prays for setting aside the conviction.
5.Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
submissions and submitted that the petitioner has suffered two concurrent
convictions of the Courts below. At this stage, the petitioner cannot make
factual submissions except for pointing out legal infirmities or perversity. In
this case, the judgment of both trial Court as well as lower appellate Court are
detailed and well-reasoned, considering the oral and documentary evidence of
the complainant and accused. The points raised by the petitioner now were
earlier raised during trial and before the lower appellate Court. He further
submitted that the respondent, even in the complaint, disclosed the true facts
stating that on 25.04.2015, the respondent had only Rs.3,00,000/- with him, he
mobilized another Rs.8,00,000/- from his friend Nagarajan/PW3, thereafter,
extended the loan of Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioner. At the time of receiving
the loan, the petitioner issued promissory note (Ex.P1) for Rs.11,00,000/- and
cheque (Ex.P2). The petitioner had not denied his signature either in Ex.P1 or
in Ex.P2. Despite receipt of statutory notice (Ex.P4), the petitioner neither
repaid the cheque amount nor sent any reply denying the contention of the
respondent. In this case, the witness, who attested the promissory note
(Ex.P1), examined as PW2. Thus, the respondent by examining himself as
PW1, Attester to Ex.P1 as PW2 and his friend who gave Rs.8,00,000/- as PW3
and producing both oral and documentary evidence, had confirmed the receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
of Rs.11,00,000/- by the petitioner and proved the petitioner issuing the
cheque in discharge of the liability. The primary contention of the petitioner is
that the respondent had no source of income to extend such huge amount as
loan. To disprove the same, the respondent examined his friend PW3 who
gave Rs.8,00,000/-.
6.He further submitted that the respondent runs a Flour Mill and, is a
regular tax payer. In fact the petitioner came in contact with the respondent in
his Auditor's office, a decade back, thereafter, they developed good
relationship. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondent
ought to have filed civil suit based on the promissory note (Ex.P1). It is the
prerogative of the respondent to choose either civil forum or criminal forum.
In this case, the respondent had chosen to file a complaint under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and filed the above complaint.
7.He further submitted that the petitioner deposited 20% of the cheque
amount i.e., Rs.2,20,000/- at the time of preferring appeal before the lower
appellate Court and also deposited Rs.1,76,000/- at the time of filing revision
before this Court. In total, the petitioner deposited Rs.3,96,000/- to the credit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
of C.C.No.268 of 2017 on the file of the trial Court. This amount along with
accrued interest can be returned to the respondent/complainant. He lastly
submitted that the trial Court on proper analysis of both oral and documentary
evidence, rightly convicted the petitioner which was confirmed by the lower
appellate Court.
8.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen
that in this case, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked seven
documents as Exs.P1 to P7. To prove execution of promissory note (Ex.P1),
the Attester PW2 examined. To confirm mobilization of Rs.8,00,000/-
through his friend Nagarajan, the said Nagarajan examined as PW3. The
petitioner approaching the respondent for loan; the respondent mobilizing
another Rs.8,00,000/- from his friend Nagarajan/PW3; the petitioner executing
promissory note (Ex.P1) and issuing cheque (Ex.P2) in discharge of libaility,
all recorded in the complaint as well as in evidence of PW1.
9.It is prerogative of the respondent to proceed by filing civil suit using
promissory note (Ex.P1) or filing a criminal case under the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent now proceeded against the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and proved that the
cheque (Ex.P2) issued in discharge of liability and the statutory conditions all
complied with. Though the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked
chit fund passbook (Ex.D1), he could make no dent in the evidence of the
respondent. Added to it, except Ex.D1, no other evidence or material
produced to prove that the respondent was running a chit and the petitioner
was a Subscriber to the chit.
10.In view of the above, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate
Court on proper analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, had rightly
come to the conclusion that the cheque (Ex.P2) and promissory note (Ex.P1)
were issued by the petitioner in discharge of liability and the petitioner failed
to prove his case beyond all reasonable. Finding of both the Courts below is
well reasoned, needs no interference.
11.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed
confirming the judgment dated 23.07.2020 in C.C.No.268 of 2017 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I @ ML, Coimbatore and the
judgment dated 15.12.2021 in Crl.A.No.161 of 2020 passed by the learned I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
12.The trial Court is directed to issue conviction warrant and secure the
petitioner to undergo the jail sentence. It is made clear that if the petitioner
comes forward for settlement at the time of execution of conviction warrant,
the same can be considered by the trial Court.
13.The respondent/complainant to file appropriate petition/memo before
the trial Court to receive the amount deposited by the petitioner so far in
C.C.No.268 of 2017. On such petition/memo is filed, the trial Court shall
permit the respondent to get the amount deposited by the petitioner in
C.C.No.268 of 2017 with accrued interest if any, dispensing notice to the
petitioner.
25.11.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court No.I @ ML,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 08:44:32 pm )
