Madras High Court
CRL A/515/2017 of K.R.KANNAN Vs B.SURESH on 12 October 2026
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
CNR: {HCMA010064672017}
K.R.Kannan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
B.Suresh
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the order dated 04.03.2016
passed in STC.No.340 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Erode.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.E.J.Ayyappan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.S.Kesavan
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
The appeal challenges the Judgment passed in STC.No.340 of 2015 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent obtained a loan of Rs.7,20,000/-; that towards discharge of the said liability, he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- on 16.02.2015; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason ‘funds insufficient’; and in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make the payment.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
3. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. The respondent examined the bank manager as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 and D2. The trial Court found that the respondent has rebutted the statutory presumption and acquitted the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding of the trial Court are perverse; that the respondent had not denied the signature in the cheque; that the appellant had established the foundational facts; that when the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'; that in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make any payment; that the respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption in the manner known to law; that mere defence that the appellant had no capacity to lend the sum would not be sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The learned counsel would also submit that since the respondent had admitted that the cheque was given as security during chit transaction, the liability is admitted and therefore, the Judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent however, would contend that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption by examining the bank manager, who had marked the statement of account of the appellant/Ext.D2, which would show that the appellant had transaction for a maximum amount of
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
Rs.49,000/- at the relevant point of time; that the respondent had elicited in the cross-examination that the appellant was only working as a driver and his monthly income was only Rs.35,000/-; that therefore, the burden shifted to the appellant to establish that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable right, which he had not established; and submitted that no interference is called for in the Judgment of the trial Court.
6. As stated earlier, the respondent obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- on 16.12.2014 and towards the discharge of the said liability, the respondent has issued a cheque for Rs.7,20,000/- on 16.02.2015. The appellant examined himself as PW1. The respondent in the cross-examination of the appellant, had elicited the fact that the appellant was only working as a driver and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. The appellant has stated that he was earning from a travels company he was running. However, no document was produced by the appellant to substantiate his income. Ext.D2 is the bank statement of the appellant, which showed that the appellant's bank balance as on 17.12.2014 was Rs.5,493/- and his maximum bank balance in the said year was Rs.47,167/-.
7. That apart, the respondent had also examined, DW1, to show that the appellant was running a chit company; that the respondent participated in the said chit and had issued two cheques as security towards the chit transaction. Though the respondent also did not establish that there was chit transaction
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
between the appellant and the respondent, this Court is of the view that the respondent has rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act by establishing that the appellant could not have had the capacity of lending such a huge sum of Rs.7,20,000/- in cash. Admittedly, the appellant had not produced any other documentary evidence to prove that he had handed over a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- in cash. Therefore, the burden had shifted to the appellant to prove his capacity to lend the said sum and that he had in fact lent Rs.7,20,000/- on the date of mentioned by him. He had not discharged that burden.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the view of the trial Court is plausible. This Court would not interfere in an appeal against acquittal unless the findings are found to be perverse. There is no perversity in the impugned
Judgement.
9. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
To The Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Erode
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )
CRL A No. 515 of 2017
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 515 of 2017 12-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:33:57 pm )