[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
C.Umapathi vs S.Senthilkumar on 10 April, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.664 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.664 of 2022
C.Umapathi ... Appellant
Vs.
S.Senthilkumar ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the
order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-Fast Track
Court, Thiruthuraipoondi in S.T.C.No.31 of 2016 dated 29.03.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Shagul Hameed
For Respondent : Mr.K.Maraimalai
JUDGMENT
The appellant as complainant filed a case under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent in S.T.C.No.31 of 2016
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Trial Court by judgment dated 29.03.2021 dismissed the complaint.
Against which, the present appeal is filed.
2.The gist of the case is that both the complainant and the respondent
are residents of Thalaignayiru village, Vedaranyam Taluk. Both are known
to each other. On 11.02.2015, the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash from the appellant and executed a promissory note
agreeing to pay Rs.1/- as interest for every Rs.100/-. When the appellant was
demanding repayment of the principal and interest, the respondent agreed
and issued a cheque dated 11.12.2015 bearing No.501163 drawn on Bank of
Baroda for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- i.e., principal of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest
of Rs.50,000/-. The cheque was presented by the appellant in his bank, State
Bank of India on 22.02.2016. The same was returned for the reason ‘funds
insufficient’ with a memo dated 22.02.2016. Thereafter, statutory notice was
issued on 29.02.2016. The respondent refused to receive the notice and
notice was returned on 02.03.2016. Thereafter, following the procedure,
complaint lodged. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The respondent not examined any witness but marked two
documents, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Against which, the
present appeal filed.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
respondent not denied the cheque or the signature in the cheque but gives an
explanation that the cheque was given for a transaction between the
appellant’s husband and the respondent for the earlier loan and the loan was
repaid, this cheque misused by filling up at a later point of time. The Trial
Court accepted the explanation failing to find that the respondent had not got
into the box, examined himself or let in any evidence, he had marked only
two documents, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Ex.D1 is a receipt dated 27.07.2013 for
Rs.1,60,000/- which was signed by the appellant and her husband. Likewise,
the Court placed heavy reliance on Ex.D2, which is a deposition of the
appellant in C.C.No.108 of 2017, which is a case of cheating and
misappropriation, in which the appellant was examined as PW8.
He further submitted that the respondent refused to receive the statutory
notice Ex.P3 and protracted the trial for almost 5 years. The respondent
admitted the signature and the cheque. Thus, the statutory presumption
under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act comes into play. Thereafter, there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no burden on the part of the complainant to prove the entire details of
transaction. The marking of Ex.D1 by the Trial Court is a grave error when
the complainant denies the signature in Ex.D1. Hence, the document ought
not to have been permitted to be marked. Likewise, EX.D2 is to be decided
on the merits of that particular case and it cannot be taken as evidence in the
present case. The appellant raised objection and further submitted that as
per Sections 33, 40, and 51 of the Indian Evidence Act, where there is an
embargo in considering the evidence of a witness in another case, the same
not followed. But the Trial Court mechanically considered the evidence and
based on Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 given a finding that the respondent had
probabilised the defence and gave a finding appellant failed to prove the
case and dismissed the complaint is not proper.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in this case,
the specific defence of the respondent is that he does not know the appellant
and had no transaction with her. A signed blank cheque was received by the
appellant's husband, who is employed in CISF, a Central Para Military
Force, who used to come only on leave. In the year 2013, there was a
transaction of Rs.3,00,000/-, which amount repaid and Ex.D1 is one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt given by appellant’s husband and the appellant also signed the same.
While marking Ex.D1, there was no objection.
Likewise, Ex.D2 is the deposition of appellant, who was examined as PW8
in C.C.No.108 of 2017. The appellant raising objection citing the Evidence
Act is not sustainable. Section 145 of the Evidence Act is clear that any prior
statement can be used for contradiction or corroboration in any trial and in
this case, the respondent contradicted the appellant by confronting Ex.D1
and Ex.D2. The appellant in her evidence admitted that there is a variation
in the ink and writings in the cheque as to the signature. Further, she initially
admits that she is only a housewife having no income and later improvises
her statement stating, she is also having agricultural income. The appellant’s
wherewithal questioned but the appellant failed to produce any material or
document to show that she had sufficient income, to lend a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to the respondent. The appellant is not aware about the
respondent's family, his business and what was his earnings. In such
circumstances, giving a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan is
unbelievable. Further, the specific case of the appellant is that on
11.02.2015, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and on
that date and executed a demand promissory note. When the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questioned, appellant answered demand promissory note is available with
her but failed to produce the same. Added to it, the cheque was given ten
months after the alleged loan, then how interest worked out to Rs.50,000/- is
irrationale. He further submitted that the appellant admits she is not aware
of transaction between her husband with the respondent. The appellant not
seriously disputed the earlier loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2010-2012
and she feigns ignorance, whether it was repaid or not. When earlier loan
according to appellant is pending, in such circumstances, giving further loan
of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2015 is unbelievable. Further, when the
complainant was recalled and further cross examined, she gives a total
contradictory statement to the evidence she deposed in C.C.No.108 of 2017,
marked as Ex.D2. These contradictions highlighted. The appellant
suppressed the fact of respondent attempting suicide and her examination as
witness in that case. Further, appellant’s specific stand is that on 11.02.2015,
she went to Chennai and after 25 days she came back, hence she was not
aware about the respondent attempting suicide. But in Ex.D2, she admits
that on 11.12.2015, she went to the shop of the respondent and demanded
repayment of the loan amount and there was a wordy quarrel between the
appellant and the respondent, following the same, respondent consumed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
poison. Thus, vital contradictions in her evidence, the Trial Court rightly
considered and referring to the contradictions finding appellant had not
come with clean hands and suppressed vital facts and hence, dismissed the
complaint. The judgment of the Trial Court is a well reasoned one, which
needs no interference.
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that the appellant initially projected a case as though the respondent
took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 11.02.2015, executed a demand promissory
note and agreed to pay interest. Thereafter, on 11.12.2015 cheque was issued
for Rs.5,50,000/- with interest of Rs.50,000/-. In her evidence, appellant was
unable to show how she had Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and how she gained
confidence to lend such a huge amount to the respondent, when she does not
know any details about the respondent and his family background and
husiness. Further, she admits that in the year 2010-2011 Rs.3,00,000/- was
given as loan to the respondent and the said loan has not been repaid in full.
This being so, giving further loan of Rs.5,00,000/- is highly doubtful. The
respondent to prove the fact of repayment of Rs.1,60,000/- on 27.07.2013
marked Rs.D1. The specific case of the appellant is that on 11.12.2015, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
went to Chennai and 25 days thereafter she came back to her native. In this
case, the cheque is dated 11.12.2015. Further, she admits that on
11.12.2015, she went to the shop of the respondent, demanded repayment of
the loan amount, there was a word quarrel and she came back, thereafter
respondent consumed poison, attempted suicide and the appellant called for
enquiry by Thalaignayiru Police. This fact is confirmed in Ex.D2. She also
admits that earlier loan transaction between the appellant’s husband and the
respondent had been sorted out and closed. Thus the evidence of the
appellant is with contradictions and her wherewithal questioned, the
appellant failed to produce the demand promissory note or any material to
show that she had sufficient source to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in
cash as loan. The responded though not examined himself but probabilized
his defence by cross examination and marking Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Trial
Court finding that the evidence of the complainant is with contradictions as
to Ex.D2 and as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act, Ex.D2 can be
considered for the purpose of contradictions and corroborations and by a
well reasoned judgment, dismissed the complaint. In view of the above, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
10.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court,
Thiruthuraipoondi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
10.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
