Madras High Court

A.V.Manimaran vs S.Nachimuthu (Died) on 13 October, 2025

Author: M.Nirmal Kumar

Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar

                                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.288 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 13.10.2025

                                                                CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                   Crl.R.C.No.288 of 2022


                     A.V.Manimaran                                                        ... Petitioner

                                                                   Vs.

                     1.S.Nachimuthu (Died)
                     2.Visalakshi
                     3.S.Savithri
                     4.K.Rathinam                                                         ... Respondents
                     (Cause title amended as per order dated 20.06.2025
                     made in Crl.M.P.No.11454 of 2025)

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of
                     Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.25 of
                     2020 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the order
                     dated 12.08.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at
                     Magisterial Level, Tiruppur in C.C.No.38 of 2015.

                                     For Petitioner         :        Mr.V.Regunthan

                                     For Respondents :               Mr.R.Baskar



                     1/13




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )
                                                                                              Crl.R.C.No.288 of 2022




                                                                 ORDER

The petitioner, who is an accused in a case filed by the defacto

complainant Nachimuthu under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

(hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) in C.C.No.38 of 2015 was convicted by

the Trial Court by judgment dated 12.08.2020 and sentenced to undergo six

months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

to the complainant as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.25 of

2020. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur by judgment dated

10.02.2022 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the Trial

Court. Against which, the present revision petition filed.

2.The defacto complainant Nachimuthu passed away at the age of 89

years on 20.11.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs of the defacto

complainant Nachimuthu got impleaded in the above case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

3.The case is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in

cash from the complainant at his residence on 10.06.2010 for urgent family

and business needs. The petitioner and the said Nachimuthu were family

friends. The petitioner agreed to repay the principal of Rs.3,00,000/- along

with interest of 18% per annum. When the said Nachimuthu demanded the

petitioner to repay the principal loan amount together with interest, the

petitioner, as proprietor of AVM International, issued a cheque for

Rs.4,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented, it got dishonoured,

following the procedures complaint was filed. During trial, Nachimuthu

examined himself as PW1 and one Venugopal, Scribe to the Pro-note

examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 marked. On the side of the defence,

the petitioner herein examined himself as DW1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D19

marked. The Trial Court on conclusion of trial, convicted the petitioner.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

petitioner and the defacto complainant Nachimuthu are friends and they had

happy moments together. They used to visit each other and go out for short

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

trips. The petitioner for his birthday, arranged a party in a Hill Station where

the petitioner had liquor and slept, at that time, the Pronote/Ex.P2 and the

Cheque/Ex.P3 stealthily removed by the said Nachimuthu and a false case

projected. To prove the birthday celebration, the petitioner marked Ex.D2

and Ex.D3, the photographs. The petitioner examined himself as DW1

deposed that for the missing of the cheque and Pronote, he went to Tiruppur

North Police Station on 10.04.2013 to lodge a complaint but the same was

refused. He also sent a reply to the legal notice/Ex.P7 and a second

reply/Ex.P8, both not considered by the Trial Court. Further, the petitioner

questioned the financial capability of the respondent, who admitted that he

had on an earlier occasion, borrowed money from the petitioner. Further, the

petitioner proved that AVM International business was started and opened a

bank account, but no business done and he closed the bank account. Well

after the closure of the bank account, the cheque in this case misused by the

defacto complainant Nachimuthu. He further submitted that after the year

2000, the petitioner started to sign as “Manii”, the cheque is dated

01.03.2013 in which the signature is “Mani” and to prove this fact, that he

changed the signature, the petitioner marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D16. This would

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

clearly prove that the cheque stealthily removed and the petitioner's

signature forged. PW2 in this case is the sister's son of the complainant, he

confirms cheque was issued on 10.06.2010 and it was presented after three

years and hence the cheque becomes stale. He further submitted that in the

year 2013 MCIR code printed cheques came in usage but in Ex.P2/cheque,

there is no MCIR code confirming that a old cheque misused. The Trial

Court not considered these aspects. Further, there is no calculation to show

how the interest of Rs.1,00,000/ had been added to the principal amount.

The petitioner by cross examination and by examining himself as a witness

produced documents in his defence, but the Trial Court finding is that

contradiction in the reply notice and to the evidence and petitioner not

probabilised his defence, convicted the petitioner which is not proper. The

Lower Appellate Court not independently considered the appeal on merits,

confirmed the conviction imposed by the Trial Court.

5.The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the

petitioner's contention and submitted that the petitioner not denied the

issuance of cheque and his signature. Though he claims that in the cheque,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

the signature has been signed as “Mani” and taken the defence that after the

year 2000, the petitioner has been signing as “Manii” and for that, he

produced Ex.D4 to Ex.D16, the Trial Court rightly given a finding that the

documents Ex.D4 to Ex.D16 are self-serving documents. He further

submitted that the petitioner in one stretch states that he used to carry signed

cheques with him for auction purpose and he is a regular participant in the

auction, but no evidence produced, the Trial Court rightly found when the

specific case of the petitioner is that petitioner not done any business in

AVM International and no bank balance in the account and the explanation

of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner participated in the

auctions not proved. Further, the petitioner questioned the financial

capability of the defacto complainant Nachimuthu for which the defacto

complainant produced the sale deed/Ex.P1 to show that the defacto

complainant is a man of means. The petitioner sent a second reply notice

after filing of the complaint and hence, it was not replied. He further

submitted that though the petitioner denied his signature in the cheque, he

has not taken any steps to forward the cheque for Handwriting Expert or

producing the specimen signature card from the bank to be compared by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

Court. The Trial Court finding that the petitioner has been taken

prevaricating stand at each stage exposing the hollowness in the defence,

rightly convicted the petitioner and the Lower Appellate Court confirmed

the judgment of the Trial Court.

6.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

respondents relied upon the following decisions:

1) Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal.H reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663

2) R.Vijayan vs. Baby and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 260

3) Kalamani Tex and another vs. P.Balasubramanian reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283

4) P.K.Selvaraj vs. Umadevi reported in 2021 (2) MWN(Cr.) SCC 113(Mad.)

5) Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC

6) Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC

7) Uttam Ram vs. Devinder singh Hudan and another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 287

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that

earlier when the petitioner filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate

Court, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of

C.C.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track

Court at Magisterial Level, Tiruppur. Thereafter, during the pendency of

the revision petition before this Court, the petitioner deposited another

Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.38 of 2015, hence the entire cheque

amount along with interest, namely, Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited by the

petitioner. The scanned reproduction of the receipts is as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/10/2025 07:18:57 pm )

8.In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no merit in the

contention of petitioner. Since the entire amount deposited by the

petitioner, the conviction of six months imposed by the Trial Court which

was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court confirming imposition of

compensation alone is set aside. The deposited amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as

above which is lying in the credit of C.C.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the

Trial Court to be paid as compensation to the respondents. The

compensation amount along with accrued interest to be paid to the

respondents 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the defacto complainant

Nachimuthu. The Trial Court to hand over the deposited amount with

interest, if any, dispensing with notice to the petitioner. The respondents to

file a petition/memo along with the above order and the Trial Court to