CRL A/676/2021 of R. VASUDEVAN Vs BHUVANESWARI. K on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Appeal challenges the judgment dated 13.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.3824 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-1, Egmore, Chennai, holding that the respondent is not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent became a tenant in his premises in the month of September, 2017; that she obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of October, 2017 and

CRL A No. 676 of 2021

towards repayment of the said loan, she issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.04.2017; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason ‘funds insufficient’; and that in spite of statutory notice, she did not make the payment.

3. The appellant had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The Trial Court found that the version of the appellant is improbable and by the answers elicited in the cross-examination the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, would submit that the respondent had not denied her signature in the cheque; that the appellant had proved the foundational facts; that the respondent had merely made suggestions without establishing her defence; and that therefore, the Trial Court ought to have held that the respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption and prayed for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent however would submit that the appellant’s case on the face of it is improbable; that in the complaint, the appellant had stated that the respondent obtained loan in the month of October, 2017 and requested six months time to make repayment; that the appellant would however state that in the month of

CRL A No. 676 of 2021

November, 2017, he made repeated demands to the respondent to repay the amount, which is contrary to the earlier averment in the complaint and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court is plausible and even if a different view is possible, this Court may not interfere in the appeal against acquittal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. As could be seen from the complaint, the alleged loan was said to have been taken by the respondent in October, 2017 and even according to the appellant, she had requested six months to repay the said amount. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, the appellant stated that in the month of November, the appellant made repeated demands for repayment of the loan amount and a cheque was issued on 17.11.2017. The two averments in the complaint contradict each other. Be that as it may, the respondent had elucidated the fact that the respondent was a tenant under the appellant and there was no necessity for the respondent to obtain loan from the appellant. That apart, the appellant had not filed any contemporaneous document to establish that a loan was in fact given to the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court considered the various circumstances pointed above, the answers elicited in the cross- examination and had rightly held the respondent not guilty of the offences.

7. In an appeal against acquittal, it is well settled that even if an alternate view is possible, this Court would not interfere in the judgment

CRL A No. 676 of 2021

of acquittal unless the findings are perverse. This Court finds no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 13.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi/nm To The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai.

CRL A No. 676 of 2021

SUNDER MOHAN, J. mmi CRL A No. 676 of 2021 13.10.2026