[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Motcha Rackini vs Jayanthi on 10 April, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.972 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.972 of 2022
S.Motcha Rackini ... Appellant
Vs.
Jayanthi ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside
the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track
Court), Tiruvannamalai in S.T.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 15.09.2021 and allow
this appeal by convicting the respondent/accused to maximum sentence and
impose fine double the amount of cheque payable to the complainant.
For Appellant : Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajarajan
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.972 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant as complainant filed a case under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act) against the respondent in S.T.C.No.98 of
2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court)
Tiruvannamalai. The Trial Court by judgment dated 15.09.2021 dismissed
the complaint. Against which, the present appeal is filed.
2.The complaint against the respondent filed before the Trial Court is
that the appellant working as Headmistress in Naidumangalam Village,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk, the respondent was also a Teacher and hence, they
had a cordial relationship. Their respective spouses were also Teachers and
known to each other. The respondent for family requirements borrowed a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the appellant and in repayment of the same,
issued a cheque bearing No.162581 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Indian
Bank, Naidumangalam Branch dated 17.02.2013. The respondent assured
that there would be sufficient balance in the bank to present the cheque and
encash it. Thereafter, the appellant presented the cheque in State Bank of
India on 11.03.2013. But the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason
“Insufficient funds”. The appellant caused a legal notice on 18.03.2013. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent replied with false averments and hence, ignoring the same
complaint filed. During trial, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. PW2 is the Bank Manager of Indian Bank. On the
side of the defence, the bank account of accused was marked as Ex.X1. On
conclusion of trial, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Against which,
the present appeal filed.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
respondent not denied the issuance of cheque and her signature, she only
takes a stand that the cheque was issued for a hand loan borrowed earlier,
but the respondent neither examined herself nor brought any materials on
record to show that what was the earlier borrowing and how it was repaid,
no details furnished. Hence, the statutory presumption under Sections 118
and 139 of NI Act comes into play. The appellant was cross examined in
detail and raised a doubt on the transaction citing that during the relevant
period, the appellant’s husband gave a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
respondent's husband and hence no loan could have been given. Further,
with regard to loan of Rs.15,00,000/- the appellant had given the details,
how she had mobilised such a huge amount. The appellant and her husband
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
both are earning Rs.52,000/- per month and they are Teachers for more than
25 years. They also own 6 acres of agricultural land and further in the year
2011, LIC policy got matured and she received Rs.12,40,000/-, apart from it
she availed jewel loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and these amounts were kept with
her to purchase a property. Since a known teacher asked for urgent help, the
amount was given as a loan. Further, the appellant also gave denominations
of notes given as loan. The appellant marked nine documents, of which
Ex.P6 is the Indian Bank statement of account showing jewel loan of
Rs.2,54,000/- available. Further, Ex.P7 is the statement of account of joint
account of appellant with her husband at Karur Vysya Bank wherein some
balance was available. Ex.P8 is the pay drawn particulars of the appellant
and Ex.P9 is the Auditor account statement of the appellant, in which, loan
was reflected. These documents have not been seriously disputed or
questioned, but the Trial Court, on its own had given a finding that Ex.P6 to
Ex.P9 filed in the year 2021 and the loan transaction in this case is in the
year 2013, hence rejected these documents and not considered the same.
The complainant in this case was grilled by lengthy cross-examination.
Appellant withstood the cross-examination and deposed clearly with regard
to loan transaction, with regard to wherewithal and loan given to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent. But the Trial Court dismissed the complaint.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam alias
Imran vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC online 670 and
submitted that the respondent claimed that there was a dispute in the stock
market business and the appellant’s husband and the respondent’s husband
had dispute and misunderstanding and for this reason filled up a cheque and
projected a false case. In the above decision, it is held that enmity is a
double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand,
it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the
petitioner’s contention and submitted that the Trial Court by a well-reasoned
judgment had culled out the evidence of PW1 and referred to the evidence of
the complainant and on the documents produced and rightly dismissed the
complaint. He further submitted that even at the first instance, the
respondent sent a reply notice Ex.P5 and the respondent denied any loan or
transaction. It is clearly stated that the respondent had no necessity or reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to borrow such a huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and that to, in cash. A
blank cheque was given for a earlier hand loan along with promissory note,
retained and earlier loan discharged and the security cheque is misused is the
specific defence of the respondent. Further, the respondent had questioned
whether the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- given as loan to the respondent had
been declared in the income tax returns and the respondent was willing to
pay the cost for getting the copy of the income tax returns. But despite
receipt of the reply notice, no rejoinder or explanation sent. The appellant
was questioned the wherewithal, thereafter to, no steps taken to produce the
income tax returns or any contemporary document to show appellant had
wherewithal. On the other hand, Ex.P9 Auditor's statement prepared for the
purpose of this case and in the Auditor's statement, though shown filed for
the years 2006-2007 to 2012-2013 and loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the
respondent is shown. But the audit statement prepared on 30.01.2021 i.e.,
almost ten years after the transaction. Further, the bank statement clearly
confirms that the petitioner was not having such huge amount and the
amount of Rs.2,40,000/- is a jewel loan. From Ex.P9, it is seen that in the
year 2009-2010, agricultural land at Maruthuvambadi declared and
thereafter, there is no addition of any property, the value of the jewellery not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
increased and it is consistent right from the year 2006 to 2012. Thus,
confirming that the appellant had no income, to lend a loan of
Rs.15,00,000/-. The appellant though claims that she received LIC policy
maturity amount of Rs.12,40,000/- during the previous year of the loan, but
in the bank statement filed by the appellant, there is no reference to LIC
transaction. LIC transfers the maturity amount through the bank and hence,
the appellant's contention that she received Rs.12,40,000/- through LIC is
false. The Trial Court finding that the documents, Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 are got up
documents, not considered the same. Hence, the wherewithal of the
appellant questioned and the appellant unable to give any explanation and
prove how she had huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash. The Trial Court
rightly finding respondent probabilized her defence dismissed the complaint
and discharged the respondent.
6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajaram vs.
Maruthachalam reported in (2023) 16 SCC 125. Wherein the Apex Court
held that when the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of NI
Act mandates presumption that the cheque was for discharge of any debt or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other liability. Further, it had also held that presumption under Section 139
of NI Act is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise
probable defence. In this case, the appellant failed to produce the income tax
returns, which is the probable defence and consistent stand of the
respondent. Even in the initial reply notice Ex.P5, the respondent questioned
wherewithal and requested to produce income tax returns, on the contrary
Auditor’s statement Ex.P9 produced to show that appellant had sufficient
income for the year 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, but this Auditor’s statement
prepared on 30.01.2021. Hence, it is apparent that these documents are not
contemporary documents and not filed along with the Income Tax
Department, prepared for the purpose of this case.
7.Considering the submission made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that in this case, the appellant and the respondent are Teachers,
known to each other for ten years and their respective spouses are also
Teachers. The appellant filed the above case for Rs.15,00,000/- cheque and
her husband filed a case for Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent’s
husband. When the respondent specifically questioned with regard to the
case filed by the appellant’s husband, appellant evaded the same and replied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that it is for him to answer. The appellant is specific that she gave loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- in cash on 17.02.2013 for which her evidence is that for 25
years she is a Teacher, both the appellant and her husband are earning
Rs.52,000/- per month, they also own 6 acres of land and getting income.
Further, in the year 2011, LIC policy maturity amount of Rs.,12,40,000/-
received and in the year 2012, jewel loan of Rs.2,40,000/- obtained. From
Ex.P6/statement of account of the complainant and Ex.P7/statement of
account of appellant and her husband, it is seen that there is no reference for
receipt of payment of maturity amount from LIC. Further, it is seen that the
documents Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 clearly shows that the appellant had no
wherewithal to provide loan of Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 are the
documents prepared in the year 2021, not supported the case of the
complainant. From Ex.P9/Auditor’s statement, it is clear that it is a got up
document and it is prepared only on 30.01.2021 and it is not a contemporary
document of the year 2012 during the loan period. Hence, the respondent
rightly probabilised her defence by cross examination and referring to the
documents filed by the appellant/complainant which the Trial Court,
extracted in the judgement referred and had given a well reasoned judgment.
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.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,)
Tiruvannamalai.
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
