Madras High Court
CRL A/657/2018 of R.JAGADESHWARAM Vs R.GOVINDASAMY on 16 October 2026
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
CNR: {HCMA013023002018}
R.Jagadeshwaram
..Appellant(s)
Vs
R.Govindasamy
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.38/2015 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode and set aside the Judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed in
C.A.No.38/2015 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode reversing the order passed in S.T.C.No.140/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate (FTC No.II) Erode dated 05.05.2015.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.M.Vignesh
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
It is the case of the appellant that he had parted with a sum of Rs.1 Crore in cash to the respondent on 21.10.2012 and towards discharge of the said liability, the respondent had issued 7 cheques in the following manner on 14.11.2012;
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
Cheque Number (drawn in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Kunnathur Branch For sum of Rupees 286744 Rs.15,00,000/- 286745 Rs.15,00,000/- 286746 Rs.15,00,000/- 286747 Rs.15,00,000/- 286748 Rs.15,00,000/- 286749 Rs.15,00,000/- 286750 Rs.10,00,000/- When the cheques were presented for collection, it was returned for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ and in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make the payment.
2. Before the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P16. The respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any document.
3. The trial Court, based on evidence, held the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. On appeal, the appellate Court reversed the said Judgment and acquitted the respondent, which is under challenge before this Court.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had established the foundational facts, namely that the cheque was issued by the respondent; that the cheques were dishonoured on presentation; that in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make any payment; that the respondent did not rebut the statutory presumption; and therefore, the impugned Judgement is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption by eliciting answers in the cross-examination suggesting that the appellant had no capacity to lend such a huge sum of Rs.1 Crore by cash; that no document was produced by the complainant to prove the lending; and that the appellant had misused the cheques of the respondent.
6. It is the specific case of the appellant that he had lent a sum of Rs.1 Crore on 21.10.2012, since the respondent requested loan for his urgent family and business needs. First of all, it is not known as to how the repayment was made within three weeks as the cheques are dated 14.11.2012.
7. Be that as it may, in the cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had the capacity to lend Rs.1 Crore in cash. However, he had not produced
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
any document to show his capacity to lend such a huge sum, especially by way of cash. Though he claimed that he had four or five bank accounts, he had not filed the details of the bank accounts to establish his case before the Court. That apart, the version of the appellant that he gave such a huge sum without obtaining any document is also highly improbable. Considering all the above facts, the appellant Court found that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption and the appellant had failed to discharge his burden of establishing that he had the capacity to lend the sum of Rs.1 crore by cash.
8. This Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the Judgment of the appellate Court. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the Judgment, unless it is found to be perverse. It is seen that there is no perversity in the impugned Judgment and the view taken by the learned Judge is plausible. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned
Judgment.
9. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The Judicial Magistrate (FTC No.II), Erode.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 657 of 2018
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 657 of 2018 16-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )