[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.Gopal vs R.Thangapandi on 10 April, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.805 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.805 of 2022
A.Gopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Thangapandi
2.State rep. by
The Public Prosecutor,
Coimbatore District – 641 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.95 of 2019 dated 25.04.2022 by the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore confirming the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
with interest at 6% per annum in default to undergo a sentence of simple
imprisonment for three months passed in C.C.No.265 of 2014 dated
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.805 of 2022
13.02.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate,Fast Track No.2 at Magisterial Level,
Coimbatore and to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
For R1 : Mr.S.T.Raja
for M/s.Omsairam Advocates
For R2 : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused on a complaint filed by the
respondent/complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
(NI Act) faced trial in C.C.No.265 of 2014. The Trial Court by judgment
dated 13.02.2019 convicted he petitioner and sentenced to undergo six
months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
with 6% interest as compensation, in default, to undergo, three months
simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred
an appeal in C.A.No.95 of 2019. The Lower Appellate Court by judgment
dated 25.04.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and
sentence of the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
complainant and the accused.
3.The accused is known to the complainant. The accused approached
the complainant and requested hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his urgent
requirement and promised that the said amount will be repaid within a
period of three months. On this assurance, Rs.5,00,000/- hand loan was
given on 12.04.2013. Thereafter, in discharge of the said liability, a cheque
bearing No.025127 dated 27.08.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vadavalli
Branch for Rs.5,00,000/- was issued by the petitioner. This cheque was
deposited by the respondent in his bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank,
Vadavalli Branch on 27.08.2013 and it was returned for the reason
“Insufficient funds”. Thereafter, statutory notice issued on 14.09.2013
received by the petitioner on 20.09.2013. The petitioner neither paid the
cheque amount nor sent any reply. Thereafter, complaint filed. The
complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked four documents, Ex.P1
to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P2 is the bank memo, Ex.P3 is the
statutory notice and Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment card. The accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examined two witnesses, DW1/father of the accused and the accused himself
as DW2, but not marked any documents. On conclusion of trial, the Trial
Court convicted the petitioner, confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
respondent admits he is having a cellphone shop and when suggested he was
into finance business, charging exorbitant interest and police complaint
pending against him, he denied the same. According to the petitioner, the
respondent is running finance business charging exorbitant interest. The
respondent admits that Rs.5,00,000/- is a huge amount to him. Thus, how the
respondent had mobilized Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and gave loan to the
petitioner is highly doubtful. The respondent admits that neither in the
statutory notice nor in the complaint or in his evidence he has given details
of the date of loan, how he was having Rs.5,00,000/- cash in hand and when
the demand for repayment of the loan was made, apart from the
cheque/Ex.P1, there is no supporting document for such a huge loan. The
respondent admits he has not filed any income tax returns for the particular
period. Further, the specific defence of the petitioner is that the petitioner's
father borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent and since his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
father had no bank account, he requested the petitioner to issue a cheque.
Hence, the petitioner gave a signed blank cheque which was misused and
projected as though Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed. In fact, the petitioner's father
repaid the loan within a period of 10 months and when requested for return
of cheque, the respondent gave vague replies and finally filed the above
case. To prove the same, the petitioner examined his father as DW1 and also
examined himself as DW2 giving explanation that the cheque for
Rs.50,000/- misused and this Rs.50,000/- loan repaid. The wherewithal of
the respondent questioned but the Trial Court merely gone on the statutory
presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act finding that the petitioner
not denied the issuance of cheque and his signature and not considering the
attendant facts of the above case.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Dattatraya vs.
Sharanappa reported in 2024 INSC 586 for the point that the Trial Court
has to see whether there was valid existence of legally recoverable debt and
the very issuance of cheque is dubious based on the fallacies and
contradictions in the evidence adduced by the parties. Further, when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused was able to cast a shadow of doubt on the case presented by the
complainant, would be sufficient to show that the accused successfully
rebutted the presumption stipulated by Section 139 of NIA Act and further,
when the financial capacity of the creditor is raised on behalf of the accused
and thereafter, the same is to be discharged by the complainant by cogent
evidence. He further relied upon the judgment of High Court of Manipur at
Imphal in the case of Shri.Manoj Kumar Jain vs. Shri.Mahendra Kumar
Jain (Crl.A.No.24 of 2023 dated 17.10.2025).
6.The learned counsel for the first respondent strongly opposed the
petitioner's contention and submitted that the petitioner suffered two
concurrent convictions. He further submitted that during trial, the respondent
examined himself as PW1 and marked four documents. The petitioner
neither denied the cheque nor his signature, but takes a defence that the
cheque issued by the petitioner's father, who was examined as DW1 for the
loan of Rs.50,000/-, petitioner's father was not having any bank account and
the petitioner handed over his signed blank cheque to the respondent and this
cheque is misused. Though the petitioner examined his father as DW1 and
himself as DW2 to probabilize his defense, in this case, the petitioner failed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to produce any iota of proof to show that Rs.50,000/- taken as loan was
repaid, what was the mode of repayment and no contemporary documents
produced, except for the oral suggestion that loan repaid with interest which
is the only bald explanation without any materials. Further, the Trial Court
found despite receipt of the statutory notice/Ex.P3, the petitioner not denied
the transaction and sent any reply notice. Further, petitioner not informed his
bank or lodged any police complaint for misuse of his cheque. The petitioner
is running a mechanic shop, the respondent used to give his vehicle for
service and they got acquainted. The petitioner requested loan for urgent
needs and the respondent gave Rs.5,00,000/- as hand loan to the petitioner.
The petitioner's defence considered by both Courts below and found to be
unacceptable and found respondent proved the case beyond all reasonable
doubt and the petitioner was rightly convicted.
7.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent
relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Tedhi Singh vs.
Narayan Dass Mahant reported in (2022) 6 SCC 735 for the point that it is
the duty of the Trial Court to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of
the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in a given case the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused had shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason
that the accused has established a probable defence. In this case, the accused
failed to probable his defence.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that in this case, Ex.P1/cheque was issued by the petitioner. The
cheque and the signature not denied. Hence, statutory presumption under
Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act come into play. The defence
taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner's father DW1 taken a loan of
Rs.50,000/- from the respondent and he repaid the loan after 10 months with
interest, in total, Rs.70,000/-. Since his father had no bank account and
petitioner gave his cheque as security. This cheque misused by the petitioner
is the primary defence. DW1 and DW2 admit that both were together met
the respondent at the time of taking the loan and handed over the cheque,
hence issuance of cheque and signature not denied. Even after receipt of
statutory notice, no steps taken to collect the security cheque. DW2
confirms that even after receipt of Statutory notice/Ex.P3, the petitioner not
taken any steps to send reply notice denying the liability or the defence
presently taken, informing the bank or lodging any police complaint for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
misuse of the cheque. The Trial Court considering all these aspects and
finding that even for repayment of Rs.50,000/- loan except for suggestion,
no materials produced to show that the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest
repaid. Thus, finding that the petitioner failed to probabilize his defence and
the complainant proved the case, convicted the petitioner. The Lower
Appellate Court on independent assessment had rightly confirmed the
conviction. This court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of both
Courts below.
9.In the result, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.
10.The Trial Court is directed to secure the petitioner for sufferance of
sentence. In the event the petitioner comes forward to return the cheque
amount and to compound the offence, the same can be entertained by the
Trial Court and the case can be compounded.
10.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track No.2 at Magisterial Level,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery order made in
10.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
