Madras High Court
M/S.Quick Suppliers vs M/S.Sri Murugan Textiles Processing ... on 29 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.135 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.135 of 2011
and
Crl.M.P.No.11247 of 2024
M/s.Quick Suppliers,
Rep. by its Manager,
G.N.Hariharan,
153/4, Thevar Complex
Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore – 18. ... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1.M/s.Sri Murugan Textiles Processing Mill,
nd
97C, Vaiyapuri Nagar 2 Cross,
Karur – 639 002.
2.R.Vadivelu,
Managing Partner,
M/s.Sri Murugan Textiles Processing Mill,
nd
97C, Vaiyapuri Nagar 2 Cross,
Karur – 639 002. ... Respondents/Accused 1 & 2
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying to set
aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
Crl.A.No.135 of 2011
Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore in C.C.No.793 of 2006 on 05.01.2011
and convict the respondents for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Selvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Vimal Bobby Crimsan
for Mr.N.K.Ponraj
JUDGMENT
The appellant as complainant had filed a private complaint against the
respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in
C.C.No.793 of 2006. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 05.01.2011,
dismissed the complaint, acquitting the respondents/accused, against which,
the present appeal is filed.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a
dealer of cutting tools, welding instruments and pipe fitting. The first
respondent is one of the customers and the second respondent is its Managing
Director. The respondents purchased materials from the appellant during the
period from 25.02.2004 to 14.11.2005 to the tune of Rs.4,68,201.67. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
the payments were insisted by the appellant, the respondents issued two
cheques drawn on UTI Bank, Karur Branch bearing cheque No.081694 dated
15.05.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque No.119691 dated 20.04.2006 for
Rs.1,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented, the same got dishonoured.
Thereafter following the statutory procedure complaint filed. To prove the
case, the Power of Attorney/Manager of the appellant company examined and
through him Exs.P1 to P9 marked. Exs.P1 and P2 are cheques, Exs.P3 and P4
are bank return memos, Ex.P5 is the statutory notice, Ex.P6 and P7 are the
postal acknowledgements, Ex.P8 is the Power of Attorney document and
Ex.P9 is the statement of account of the business.
3.In this case the appellant examined himself as PW1, filed his proof
affidavit on 06.05.2008, thereafter cross examined on 12.06.2008. At the time
of cross examination, the payment details, which the respondents claimed to
have paid to the appellant on 23.09.2004 a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on 20.01.2005
a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on 13.03.2004 a sum of Rs.75,000/- and on 23.03.2004
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
a sum of Rs.50,000/- were denied. Later, he admitted that the bill books for
the period from 25.02.2004 to 14.11.2005 would confirm the payment made
by the respondents if any and whatever payments made by the respondents is
through their Manager, Venugopal. The respondents received notice but not
refuted the same. Thereafter PW1 recalled for cross examination on
14.07.2010. At that time, PW1 admitted receipt of certain payments, which
were prior to issuance of cheques, which was projected as though the
appellant company received the payment. Further DW1 is the Manager of
UTI Bank, Karur Branch, through him Exs.D1 to D5 marked. DW2, the other
bank Manager denies knowledge of any such transaction. The respondents
not denied the signature and issuance of cheque. When that is so, the trial
Court ought to have seen that statutory presumption is starring against the
respondents and the respondents not probabilised their defence. On the other
hand, merely because PW1, who recalled two years later, admits about
certain documents, giving benefit of doubt to the respondents, acquitting
them is not proper.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
4.The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the
appellant’s contention submitting that in this case PW1/Manager initially
cross examined on 12.06.2008. On which date, a question with regard to
specific payment details put to him. The appellant in his questioning under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied and gave explanation. The respondents made
payments for machine supply. Further it is a commercial transaction. In this
case no bills or invoices produced to show machines supplied. There was
some transaction between the appellant and the respondents and the
respondents paid for the same. To prove their payment, the respondents
examined DW1, the Bank Manager of UTI Bank, Karur Branch and through
him Exs.D1 to D5 marked. Exs.D1 to D5 not seriously disputed except for a
general question that for what reason Exs.D1 to D5 paid to the appellant, the
reason not known but the appellant not denied the payment made through
Exs.D1 to D5. Thereafter PW1 was recalled on 14.07.2010 and when it was
confronted with Exs.D1 to D5, he admits the payments. Thus the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
not only probabilised, proved the payment of around Rs.4,68,205/- and the
entire amount has been paid. The trial Court in its judgment discussed in
detail the evidence of PW1, DW1, Exs.D1 to D5 and found that the
respondents probabilised their defence and proved that they discharged the
liability covering Exs.P1 and P2 cheques.
5.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of
the materials, this Court finds the trial Court judgment is a detailed one. PW1
in his cross examination on the second occasion after marking Exs.D1 to D5
and examination of DW1 admits and confirms that the payment have been
received by the appellant company. Thus the respondents probabilised their
defence, which was rightly recorded and the trial Court dismissed the
complaint. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the
trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
6.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the
discharge of the respondents/accused is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
rsi
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
and
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
