Madras High Court
M/S.V.M.Maheswar Traders vs Sri. B.S.Kalyanappagol on 28 October, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.315 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.315 of 2015
M/s.V.M.Maheswar Traders,
Rep. By its Proprietor M.Mahesh
19, Gandhi Road, Reddy Street,
Ambur – 635 802. ...Appellant
Vs.
Sri. B.s.Kalyanappagol,
Proprietor, Shri. Ram Traders,
Near Kori Chowk, Bijapur – 586 101,
Karnataka. ...Respondent
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the order of acquittal under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act against accused made in C.C.No.127 of
2011 dated 15.04.2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur.
For Appellant : Mr.N.P.Kumar
For Respondent : No appearance
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:25:50 pm )
Crl.A.No.315 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the Additional
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur in C.C.No.127 of
2011, dated 15.04.2015.
2. The case is a private complaint filed by the
appellant/complainant for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. According to the complainant, in discharge of his
liability to pay for the coconut supply, the accused had issued a cheque
dated 06.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- . Upon being presented the
same, it returned dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”
and after issuing statutory notice, the complaint was filed.
3. Upon recording a sworn statement, summons were issued to the
accused and upon appearance and furnishing of copies, the accused
denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to prove the allegations,
the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibits P1 to P5 were
marked. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and the
circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false.
Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibits D1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:25:50 pm )
D13 were marked. Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the issue and
found that the accused had disproved the version of the complainant and
established that there was no legal liability for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-
and therefore, in the absence of a legally enforceable debt, the Trial
Court gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. As
against the same, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant by pointing out various
grounds of appeal would submit that, in this case when the accused
admitted the signature in the cheque, the presumption operates in favour
of the complainant. If there was no liability, the accused has not given
any explanation with reference to why he had issued the cheque. Hence,
the learned counsel submits that Trial Court ought not to have acquitted
the accused.
6. Even though notice is served, respondent has not appeared.
7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:25:50 pm )
8. The primary ground on which the Trial Court acquitted the
accused is that, in the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that
for the supply of coconut, there were four bills and the total sum payable
in respect of those four bills were Rs.4,73,921/- and complainant also
had admitted the Ex.D12 series (7 receipts) amounting to Rs.2,32,000/-
being paid. In view thereof, the Trial Court concluded that there cannot
be any liability to the tune of Rs.7,25,000/- and granted benefit of doubt
to the accused and acquitted him.
9. The said finding cannot be termed as perverse finding or an
impossible view. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Trial
Court is based on due appreciation of evidence and accordingly, finding
no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
28.10.2025
mp
NCC : Yes
To
The Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ambur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:25:50 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,
mp
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 05:25:50 pm )
