Madras High Court
Gunasundari vs M/S.Sree Durga Industries on 29 October, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
CRL A No. 500 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. 500 of 2022
Gunasundari
W/o A.Shankar,
No.96/2, Mahaveer Street, Mogappair
Street, Sathiya Nagar, Padi,
Chennai-50
Appellant(s)
Vs
1.M/s.Sree Durga Industries,
Represented by its Proprietor,
R.Kumar,
No.18/5B, Telephone Exchange,
Tass Industrial Estate,
Pattarawakkam,
Chennai – 98.
2.R.Kumar
S/o Rengasamy,
st
No.44, 1 Main Road,
Sathya Nagar, Padi, Chennai-50.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
CRL A No. 500 of 2022
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment of acquittal passed in
Judgements in C.C.No.276 of 2019 dated 23.02.2022 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court(Magisterial Level), Ambattur.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Vivekananthan
for M/s.S.Senthil Murugan
For Respondent (s): Mr.M.Ravichandran
ORDER
This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the learned Judicial
magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur, dated 23.02.2022
made in CC.No.276 of 2019. By the said judgment, the learned trial court had
acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.This is a private complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for an
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the matter
was taken up for consideration, by the judgement dated 23.02.2022, the trial
Court found that even though complainant examined herself as PW1, was never
present thereafter and did not subject herself to cross examination and in view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
thereof, the evidence of the complainant could not be taken into account and
accordingly, the accused was acquitted.
3.Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the appellant, by pointing out
to the adjudication, would submit that after the chief examination of the
complainant, it can be seen that due to COVID-19 the physical hearing was
suspended and the matter then proceeded on video conferencing basis and when
the matter was again called, no opportunity was given to the complainant and
the matter was proceeded further.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would
oppose the same and submit that the trial court was right inasmuch as the
complainant did not subject herself for cross examination. In the absence of no
evidence, the trial court has got no other go than to acquit the accused.
5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
6.It can be seen that the chief examination of the complainant was over
on 21.04.2021 and without posting the matter further for cross-examination,
from the judgement of trial court it can be seen that the mistake was also on the
part of the learned counsel for the complainant, wherein, he has made an
endorsement that there is no further evidence, without pointing out to the fact
that the matter was not posted for cross examination.
7.Be that as it may, one opportunity can be granted to the complainant to
prove the offence on merits and it is always advisable for the parties to contest
the case on merits rather than bringing the case to an end on a hypertechnical
issue and the same would prejudice the complainant, who is claiming a legally
enforceable liability. On the other hand, the opportunity of the accused to prove
his innocence is not taken away as once again opportunity is being given to the
accused for cross examining the complainant and both parties will also be
entitled to let in such evidence, as may be permissible under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
8.In view thereof, this Criminal Appeal is disposed on the following
terms;
1) the Order of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial
Level), Ambattur dated 23.02.2022 made in CC No.276 of 2019 is set
aside and the case is restored to the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast
Track Court) Magisterial Level, Ambattur and the case will continue from
the stage of PW1 cross.
2) The complainant/PW1 shall be present before the learned Magistrate on
12.11.2025 and would subject herself for cross-examination and the
learned counsel for the accused can cross examine the complainant on the
same day or some other day or as may be permitted by the trial court.
Thereafter, if the complainant wants, she may be permitted to let in
further evidence also or upon closure of the complaint, further
proceedings, in accordance with law, will be made in the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
9.The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
29-10-2025
Tsg
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court(Magisterial Level),
Ambattur.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
D.BHARATHA
CHAKRAVARTHY J.
Tsg
29-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
