Madras High Court
J.Dhakshinamoorthy vs K.Dhanapal on 30 October, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No. 831 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Criminal Appeal No.831 of 2022
J.Dhakshinamoorthy ...Appellant
Vs.
K.Dhanapal ..Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., as against the
judgment passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore, Vellore District in Crl.A.No.143 of 2018 dated 31.01.2019 and
confirming the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.81 of 2014 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore
District dated 03.10.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.Kannadasan E.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
Crl.A.No. 831 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Vellore dated
03.10.2016 made in C.C.No.81 of 2014 and the learned 1st Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.143 of 2018 dated
31.01.2019. By the said judgments, the respondent / accused was acquitted
for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is seen that the appellant had originally filed this appeal as
Criminal Revision but however, the Registry has objected and taken it on
file as Criminal Appeal. Be that as it may, the matter has been argued on
merits and, as such, it is disposed off on merits by this Court. This is a
private complaint filed by the appellant, complaining an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused, who is in the
business of painting contract in and around Vellore is known to the
complainant and, in June 2013, he approached the complainant for a loan of
Rs.3,00,000/- for his business purposes. The complainant arranged the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
amount and advanced to the accused on 01.07.2013 and the accused also
executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same together with
interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In discharge of the said liability, the
accused issued a check due dated 10.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
When it was presented for collection, returned dishonoured with the
endorsement 'funds insufficient' and thereafter, by issuing statutory notice,
the present private complaint was filed.
4. Upon recording sworn statement, this case was taken on file
and summons were issued to the respondent / accused. Upon appearance
and furnishing of copies, the accused denied the allegations, stood trial. In
order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1
and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Upon being questioned under section 313
Cr.P.C., about the incriminating evidence on record, the accused denied the
same as false thereafter, no evidence was let in and the Trial Court
thereafter, considered the case of the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
5. The Trial Court considered the different versions made by the
complainant with reference to the manner, in which, the loan was advanced.
The Trial Court found that the complainant had come up with different
different versions, such as, he had sold the property and out of the said
amount, had paid the complainant but did not produce any evidence in
respect of the same. The complainant has also further deposed that he has
withdrawn from the Bank and paid the accused as cash but, however, did
not produce any Bank statement, evidencing the withdrawal. The
complainant also had stated that he has given the amount from the money
given by Krishnamurthy and Elumalai and did not also examine them as
witness. Therefore, the Trial Court, considering the background of the
parties and, the sum involved being Rs.3,00,000/- and the financial status of
the parties held that in the absence of the complainant proving the capability
and the transaction, especially when the accused has denied Exs.P1 to P2 in
toto, acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt. Aggreived by
the same, the present appeal is filed.
6. Heard, Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
the appellant and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in this
case Ex.P2 / Promissory note is also marked. The presumption under the
Negotiable Instrument Act that the promissory note was executed for due
consideration and also the cheque was issued for the due liability arises in
favour of the complainant. The accused has not done anything to disprove
the liability. The capability of the complainant need not be proved,
considering the fact that the amount was only Rs.3,00,000/- and the
complainant had given reasons in the cross-examination as to how he
mobilized the amount. In this case, when there is no rebuttal of
presumption to the level of preponderance of probability, it was not
incumbent upon the complainant to further proof with reference to his
capacity etc. When the cheque has been duly marked and the signature in
the cheque has been admitted then, the Trial Court ought not to have
acquitted the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the
respondent / accused would submit that the Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence and found that the complainant has not proved the
very transaction itself. In this case, the accused has given a due reply notice
whereunder, it has been specifically pleaded that the accused is an ordinary
Painter and there was no necessity for him to borrow such a huge sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused is existing only by his daily wages and it is
specifically pleaded that the cheque was left as security in respect of a chit
transaction.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records on case.
10. The question as to the requirements of the complainant
proving that he was in a position to advance the hand loan of a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-, depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case. In
this case, the accused pleads that he is a Painter and the background of the
complainant was also taken into account by the Trial Court and, when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
complainant is coming up with a different different versions with reference
to the mobilization of the amount, the Trial Court considered the same and
given the benefit of doubt to the accused holding that the accused has
rebutted the presumption. Such a finding cannot be said to be perverse
finding or an impossible view. On the facts and circumstances of the case,
both the Courts have concurrently held in favour of the accused.
11. In the said backdrop of the case, finding no merits, this
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
30.10.2025
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
Nuetral Citation : No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
KKN
To:-
1.The I-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Fast Tract Court,
Vellore.
Criminal Appeal No.831 of 2022
30.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 02:39:36 pm )
