CRL RC/683/2019 of T.KUSELAN @ PADMANABAN Vs P.SAKTHIVEL on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment passed in C.A.No.38 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019, by which the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore, has reversed the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.87 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Vellore.

2. It is the case of the respondent herein that the petitioner borrowed a total sum of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) in three instalments and had executed a pro-note; that towards the said discharge of the said liability and towards interest, he had issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) bearing Cheque No.197581; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason "funds insufficient"; that the respondent issued a statutory notice and after receiving the notice, the petitioner requested the complainant not to take any action, but failed to make the payment and hence, liable for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instuments Act, 1881.

3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined four witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P12. The petitioner had not examined any witnesses, but marked Exhibits D1 to D5 through P.W1. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found that by marking Exhibits D1 to D5, evidencing the payment of money to the respondent, the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption and thereafter, the respondent had not discharged his burden of establishing that there was legally enforceable debt or liability.

4. The respondent challenged the said judgment before the Appellate Court and by the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court found that the evidence of P.W1 would reveal that the amounts recovered under Exhibits D1 to D5 were for a different transaction and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court is not justified and convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation to the respondent of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. When the matter was earlier taken up for hearing, my learned Predecessor had directed the respondent to take steps to file a petition to transpose himself as the appellant and to file correct and clean copy of the grounds of appeal within a period of three weeks based on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in K.Rajalingam Vs. Suganthalakshmi.

6. It is reported by the learned counsel on either side that the respondent had filed a petition and the Registry returned the said petition and the petitioner had not represented it thereafter. Therefore, it is seen that the earlier order of this Court had not been complied by the respondent.

7. Be that as it may, this Court intends to hear the case on merits, so that the substantive claims of the parties are adjudicated finally.

8. As stated above, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Only), which came to be dishonoured. The respondent's case is that the petitioner had issued three pro-notes, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 dated 15.02.2008, 25.08.2008 and 05.02.2009 respectively and since the petitioner had not made any payment, the petitioner was due to pay the said amount along with the interest and therefore, the total amount payable was Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only), which is the cheque amount.

9. Though the petitioner had not examined any witnesses, he had marked Exhibits D1 to D5. The respondent had acknowledged the receipt of money in Exhibits D1 to D5, which is called "payment book". Though the respondent would claim that it pertains to a different transaction, the respondent had not let in any evidence to establish that there were other transactions between the petitioner and the respondent.

10. By marking Exhibits D1 to D5 and establishing that substantial money has been repaid, the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption. The burden therefore shifted to the respondent. In the absence of any evidence by the respondent to establish that there were other transactions and Exhibits D1 to D5 were only to repay the money due under other transactions, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the petitioner. The Appellant Court, however, without adverting to these aspects, had merely picked up a sentence from the cross-examination of P.W1 to hold that the payments were made of a different transaction.

11. This Court is of the view that the findings of the Appellate Court is without basis and in any case, since the Trial Court had taken a plausible view, the Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the said judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Court is set aside. The judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court is restored. The petitioner stands acquitted of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 accordingly.

12. The Criminal Revision Case, as such, stands allowed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm) To:

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Vellore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Vellore.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL RC No. 683 of 2019 22-09-2026