CRL A/374/2021 of K.SUGUNA Vs S.YUVARAJ on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgment passed in C.A.No.112 of 2019, by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”).

2. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) in the month of July 2013 by cash for his business need; that towards the discharge of the said liability, he had issued a cheque for Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) dated 30.07.2014 drawn on City Union Bank Limited, Maduravoyal Branch; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient,” and in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make any payment but issued a reply notice making inconsistent statements.

3. The appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent examined his father as D.W.1 and himself as D.W.2 and marked his reply notice as Ex.D1 and the card evidencing the receipt of the said reply by the complainant/appellant as Ex.D2.

4. The Trial Court found that the respondent had admitted the signature in the cheque; that the cheque was returned for the reason “Funds Insufficient”; and that the respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption, and therefore, he is liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

5. The respondent preferred an appeal, i.e., C.A.No.112 of 2019 dated 11.01.2021, before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment held that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption, and thereafter the appellant failed to discharge her burden of establishing that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and liability. 6(a). The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the respondent had taken contrary stands in his reply to the statutory notice, in his answers to the 313 questioning, and in the cross-examination of P.W.1/appellant/complainant; that in the light of the inconsistent and improbable defence, it cannot be said that he had rebutted the presumption; and that therefore, the Appellate Court ought not to have reversed a well-considered Judgment of the Trial Court.

(b) . The learned counsel for the appellant took this Court through the averments made in Ex.D1 notice, the answers to the 313 questioning, and the suggestions made by the respondent's counsel to P.W.1 in the cross-examination. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside and prayed for the same.

7. Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, the learned counsel for the respondent, however would submit that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption by eliciting favorable answers in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to the effect that the cheque was issued at the Police Station during a negotiation in respect of a complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent’s father, and one Mr.John Vijayan; that therefore, the averments in the complaint that the appellant lent a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) is falsified; and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of establishing a legally enforceable debt or liability; and therefore, he would submit that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the Judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.

(b) . He relied upon the Judgment of this Court in R.Sarangapani, vs. R.S.Nammalwar in Crl.O.P.No.26642 of 2016 in Crl.A.SR.No.55688 of 2014 dated 05.12.2017, wherein this Court had cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 441, in which the practice of using the police machinery to settle a civil dispute was deprecated.

8. As stated above, it is the specific case of the appellant that she lent a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) in the month of July 2013 and towards discharge of the said loan, the respondent issued the cheque in question in the month of July 2014. It is not in dispute that the cheque was signed by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient.” The only issue in this case is whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability.

9. According to the appellant/complainant, it was a loan transaction. According to the respondent/accused, the cheque was issued at the Police Station during an enquiry in a complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent’s father, and one Mr.John Vijan. The Appellate Court had relied upon the admissions made by P.W.1 to hold that the defence of the respondent is more probable, and that therefore, the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption. The relevant portion relied upon by the Appellate Court in P.W.1's evidence reads as follows:

“kJuthay;. _yl;Rkp efh ; bt';fnl!;tuh bjUtpy; ehd; VnjDk; brhj;J th';fp cs;nsdh vd;why; brhj;J th';fp cs;nsd;/ vdf;F brhj;J tpw;wth; bgah; "hgfk; ,y;iy/ vdf;F Ihd; tpIad; vd;gtiu bjhpa[k;/ mth; K:ykhf jhd; ehd; brhj;J th';fpndd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ Ihd; tpIad; kPJk;. Vjphpapd; je;ij kPJk; fhty; Mizahplk ; ehd ; g[fhh ; bfhLj;J kJuthay ; fhty; epiyaj;jpy ; tprhuiz ele;jJ vd;why ; fhty; Mizahplk ; ehd ; g[fhh ; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ kJuthay; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ m';F tprhuiz ele;jJ/ vjw;fhf fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd; vd;gJ "hgfk ; ,y;iy/ vg;nghJ g[fhh ; bfhLj;njd; vd;gJk ; "hgfk ; ,y;iy/ 2014 Mk ; Mz;oy ; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd; U:/10.25.000/- rk;ge;jkhf Ihd; tpIad; kw;Wk; vjphpapd; je;ij kPJ g[fhh; bfhLj;njd; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ me;j g[fhh; ehd; brhj;J th';fpaJ rk;ge;jkhdJ vd;W brhd;dhy; mJt[k; rhpjhd;/’’ In fact, in the further cross-examination, P.W.1 had admitted as follows: “vjphpapd ; je;ij kw;Wk ; Ihd ; tpIad ; kPJ fhty ; epiyaj;jpy ; g[fhh ; epYitapy ; ,Ue;jnghJ jhd; vjphpaplk ; fhnrhiy bgw;nwdh vd;W nfl;lhy;. fhty; epiya g[fhh ; Koe;j gpwF jhd ; vjphpaplk ; fhnrhiy nfl;nld;/’’

10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that in the subsequent portion of the cross-examination, the respondent had stated that there are two different transactions, this Court is of the view in the light of the above extract from P.W.1's evidence, even assuming there are two interpretations on facts, the one in favour of the accused/respondent has to be accepted.

11. That apart, the appellant cannot take advantage of the contradictions in the defence of the respondent. In fact, it is seen that the reply notice was not even marked by the appellant, and it was the respondent who marked the reply notice as Ex.D1.

12. In the light of the fact that the respondent had probabilised his version that the cheque was obtained at the Police Station for some other transaction, the averments in the complaint that the cheque was issued for discharge of a liability or in discharge of a loan that was taken one year ago is improbable. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the finding of the Appellate Court holding the respondent not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

13. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court would not interfere in the Judgment unless it is perverse. This Court finds no perversity whatsoever in the impugned Judgment. Hence, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited so far before the Trial Court. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk To The II Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai – 600 003.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk CRL A No. 374 of 2021 16-10-2026