Madras High Court
K.Gunasekaran vs E.Krishnamoorthy on 29 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C. No.18 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.18 of 2022
K.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
E.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondent/complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set aside the said order dated
25.06.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2018 on the file of III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore confirming the
judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
Fast Track Court No.1 @ ML, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.407 of 2016 and
acquit the accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Senthilvel
**********
ORDER
The petitioner / accused was found guilty of the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was
convicted by the Trial Court in a private complaint in C.C. No. 407 of
2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No-1 @ML,
Coimbatore, by judgment dated 14.06.2018. The Trial Court sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under
Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in default, to
undergo a further Simple Imprisonment for two months.
2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A. No. 291 of 2018.
The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 25.06.2020, dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been
unable to contact the petitioner/accused despite several efforts made
directly as well as through referring counsel. He further submitted that,
as a matter of professional obligation, he is pursuing the case to continue
with the case for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel stated that he is making submissions
relying on the instructions given earlier and the materials available on
record, even though there are no further instructions from the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
5. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner / accused
approached the respondent / complainant and borrowed a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.12.2014. At that time, he executed a promissory note
in favour of the complainant and agreed to repay the said amount with
interest at the rate of 2% per month. In discharge of the said liability, the
petitioner issued three cheques (i) cheque dated 10.02.2016 bearing No.
187326 for Rs.2,00,000/-, (ii) cheque dated 25.02.2016 bearing No.
187327 for Rs.2,00,000/-, and (iii) cheque dated 03.03.2016 bearing No.
187328 for Rs.1,00,000/-, all drawn on the State Bank of India, Vellalur
Branch, Coimbatore. When the complainant presented the cheques for
collection, they were returned unpaid for the reason “insufficient funds”
by bank memo dated 10.03.2016. Thereafter, a statutory notice was
issued to the petitioner on 17.03.2016 to his residential and office
addresses. The notice sent to his residential address was returned with
the endorsement “intimation delivered,” and the one sent to his office
address was returned with the postal endorsement “unclaimed.”
Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
6. During the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1
and one of the witnesses to the promissory note as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to
P9 were marked on the complainant’s side. The defence not examined
any witnesses and marked any documents.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the
petitioner, and the conviction was confirmed by the Lower Appellate
Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the
Courts below failed to consider that the complainant had not explained
the circumstances how such a huge amount advanced to the petitioner as
loan. The complainant is not a moneylender or engaged in any financial
business to justify the loan. The petitioner was convicted solely on the
ground petitioner not denies his signature or the cheques. The
petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 and
P.W.2 for cross-examination was dismissed by the Trial Court on the
same day, of the judgment, denying the petitioner an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses. He further submitted that the Lower
Appellate Court failed to consider these aspects and mechanically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
dismissed the appeal. At the time of admission of the present revision,
the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the cheque amount, i.e.,
Rs.2.5 lakhs, as per the order in Crl.M.P. No.157 of 2022, dated
11.01.2022.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petitioner’s
contentions and submitted that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.5 lakhs on
15.12.2014, agreeing to repay the same with 2% interest per month. He
executed a promissory note and subsequently issued three cheques,
which were dishonoured upon presentation. Statutory notice dated
17.03.2016 was duly issued. The complainant examined himself as
P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The
petitioner failed to cross-examine both witness despite sufficient
opportunities given. The petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rightly
dismissed finding it a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. The
petitioner, an employee of Southern Railway, Central Government
servant, was given loan based on his employment status, but he failed to
pay back the loan with interest, the petitioner suffering a judgment of
conviction has been avoided to submit to the Court of Law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
10. This Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the
materials on record, finds that the petitioner, borrowed Rs.5 lakhs,
executed a promissory note, and issued three cheques which got
dishonoured, statutory notice duly served, and P.W.1 and P.W.2
examined, marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The petitioner not challenged the
evidence at any stage, either before the Trial Court or before the lower
Appellate Court. Both Courts have rendered detailed and a well reasoned
judgments.
11. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the concurrent
findings of the Courts below. The petitioner despite given ample
opportunity, failed to make use of the same. The present plea regarding
lack of opportunity for cross-examination cannot be entertained at this
stage.
12. It is noted that the petitioner was directed to deposit
Rs.2.5 lakhs, being 50% of the cheque amount, before the Trial Court as
per the orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2022 dated 11.01.2022,
and the Trial Court was directed to deposit the said amount in a fixed
deposit account in any nationalized bank with interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
13. The respondent’s counsel has requested that the said amount be
returned. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to release the sum of
Rs.2.5 lakhs, along with accrued interest, to the respondent /de-facto
complainant without any further delay.
14. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Court below. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition
stands dismissed. The respondent to receive the deposited amount in
C.C.No.407 of 2016 from the Trial Court.
29.10.2025
nvi
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation: Yes/No.
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.1 @ ML, Coimbatore
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
nvi
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 09:04:18 pm )
