Madras High Court
Ponnusamy vs Karthikeyan on 29 October, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.47 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.47 of 2022
Ponnusamy ...Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
Karthikeyan ...Respondent/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 12.11.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, in C.C.No.74 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondent : Not ready notice
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, dated 12.11.2019 made in C.C.No.74 of 2015.
By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for an offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant herein complaining
of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case
of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
for his business development and subsequently executed a muchalika in
favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the said sum with further interest
at 12% per annum and upon execution of the muchalika got back the cheques
and other pronotes which were given on the date of borrowal. Subsequently,
in discharge of part of the above loan, the subject matter cheque for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- dated 30.07.2014 was issued. The cheque was presented by the
complainant for collection, upon which it got dishonoured with the
endorsement "Refer to Drawer". Thereafter, statutory notice was issued by
the appellant and since no payment was made nor any reply was also
received, the complaint was filed. After taking sworn statement, the
complaint was taken on file and upon issue of summons and appearance of
the accused, copies were furnished. The accused denied the allegations and
stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined
himself as P.W-1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Upon being questioned
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating
circumstances and material evidence on record, the accused denied the same
as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
Court considered the case of the parties and found that the complainant has
taken prevaricating stands in the statutory notice, complaint and evidence,
and therefore disbelieved the case of the complainant and held that the
complainant failed even to initially discharge his burden relating to legally
enforceable debt and acquitted the accused. As against the same, the appeal
was preferred.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit
that it is clear that the complainant has mentioned about the muchalika even
in the complaint, when the accused has categorically executed a muchalika
admitting his liability and thereafter issued the cheque, especially when the
signatures in the cheque are not disputed, the presumption under the
Negotiable Instruments Act would come to the aid of the complainant and as
such the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with.
4. I have considered the submissions made and perused the material
records of the case.
5. It is to be seen that the complaint itself does not mention on what
date the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the initial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
promissory note was executed and when the cheques were given to the
complainant. It subsequently states that on 24.08.2014, the accused executed
a muchalika by getting back the promissory notes and cheque agreeing to
repay the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The
said muchalika was also not produced and marked in the trial. In the absence
of any further proof that the cheque was issued in part payment of the debt,
the finding of the Trial Court that these matters were not categorically
mentioned in the statutory notice and different versions are given, cannot be
said to be a perverse finding or an impossible finding.
6. In view thereof, in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is unable to
upset the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, finding no merits, the
criminal appeal stands dismissed.
29.10.2025
cda
Index : No
Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
cda
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 01:21:48 pm )
