CRL A/756/2023 of N.SATHISH Vs S.K.LADIES BEAUTY PARLOUR AND SPA on 21 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant is ready. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he had already filed his vakalat on behalf of the respondent on 06.10.2025. When the case was listed in February 2026, his name was printed in the cause list without his initials. The respondent also not received any SMS alert. Hence, he was not aware of the listing of the case and could not appear before the Court. For that reason, Mr.S.Kathiravan, Legal Aid Counsel was appointed by this Court on 02.02.2026.

2. The Legal Aid Counsel is present today and submits that the counsel on record for the respondent can continue his arguments. In view of the same, Mr.K.Karthikeyan is permitted to represent the respondent and Mr.S.Kathiravan, Legal Aid Counsel is relieved from this case.

3. The appellant as complainant had filed a complaint against the respondent alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C.No.97 of 2019. The trial Court by judgment dated 27.04.2023 dismissed the case and discharged the respondent. Against which the present Appeal filed.

4. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and respondent are known to each other for three to four years. For development of business, respondent used to take loan frequently and would repay the same. For development of business on 19.11.2018, respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant and in discharge of the loan liability, respondent issued cheque bearing No.000124, drawn on Karur Vysya bank, Sivagiri Branch dated 30.01.2019 for Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant had presented the cheque for collection on 30.01.2019, in Karur Vysya Bank, Sivagiri Branch, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the appellant sent a statutory notice dated 04.02.2019, through his counsel and the respondent on receipt of the notice had sent a reply on 16.02.2019 with false allegations. Hence, the complaint filed.

5. During trial, complainant had examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the respondent, respondent was examined himself as D.W.1 and marked two documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 .

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the respondent had not denied the cheque and signature. Hence, the statutory presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play. The appellant is doing real estate business and having yearly income of Rs.10,00,000/- He is also an income tax assessee. The respondent admits that from the year 2016, she had been taking loan from the appellant and likewise on 24.05.2017 taken loan of Rs.20,000/-. During the transaction she had also given a cheque as security and later on 29.06.2017 principle and interest of Rs.23,000/- had been repaid. On 10.09.2017 for urgent need taken a loan of Rs.8,000/- and issued three signed cheques bearing Nos,00104, 00105, 00124 and the present cheque in this case is 00124 for Rs.5,00,000/-. It is highly unbelievable to see that for the transaction of Rs.8,000/- the respondent gave three blank cheques and one of the cheque has been filled up and filed this case.

7. Further the respondent cites the earlier transaction all through bank and thus, this loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash is highly unbelievable for which the appellant had given an explanation that it was the respondent who had asked the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and for that reason cash has been given. Further on the date of the loan, the appellant had received Rs.8,00,000/- on 17.11.2018 and Rs.6,00,000/- on 19.11.2018.and another Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.11.2018. Thus, the appellant had Rs.19,00,000/- as on the date and on the same day he had withdrawn the amount and he was having cash of Rs.19,00,000/-. He had paid Rs.5,00,000/- of loan from this amount. Further, the bank transaction Ex.P8 confirms the appellant was having money with him. But the trial Court had misread the evidence. When this court questioned the appellant with regard to Rs.19,00,000/-, wherein he had admitted about the amount received from Darani and none examined Darani and further gave benefit of doubt finding that respondent had probablised her defence and discharging the respondent is perverse. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and convict the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent and the appellant are known to each other from the year 2016 and the respondent used to take small loans frequently and repay the same and all these transactions were through bank and in such circumstances taking a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash is highly unbelievable. For the earlier transactions, the respondent had taken signed blank cheques which have been misused. The respondent had got into the box as D.W.1 and marked her bank Statement of Karur Vysya Bank as Ex.D1 and her Bank statement of Indian Overseas Bank as Ex.D2 to show that the earlier transactions were only through banks. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant submits that he is income tax assessee. The income tax return Ex.P7 for the assessment year 2019 – 2020 was filed on 02.10.2019 after statutory notice and the reply notice dated 16.02.2019 (Ex.P6). Hence, it is clearly an after thought and a created document. Further referring to Ex.P8, admitted that in this case a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- have been received from 17.11.2018 to 19.11.2018 from Darani and on the same day, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- through cheque. P.W.1 in his evidence on 10.11.2023 admits the deposit and withdrawal of Rs.19,00,000/- on 19.11.2018, but attends to give explanation that out of this Rs.19,00,000/-, Rs.14,00,000/- was handed over to Darani and balance Rs.5,00,000/- was given in loan to the respondent. When the Court had put a question with regard to that Rs.19,00,000/- and Dharani, appellant admits that this Rs.19,00,000/- was received from Darani for purchasing of agricultural field for Daranai and he also admits that he is doing real estate business and the amount admittedly Rs.19,00,000/- is that of Darani and not of the appellant and further appellant had not examined the said Darani to give further explanation. The trial Court on the above found that the appellant had no wherewithal to give a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and earlier transaction for small amount was only through funds and there is no necessity for a cash that for huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- loan. Hence, loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash is highly doubtful and hence dismissed the appeal.

9. Considering the submissions of both counsels and perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case the appellant admits that the appellant is known to the respondent from the year 2016 and the respondent has taking small loan of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on frequent intervals and she had been repaying some of these transactions through bank and this loan of Rs.5,00,000/- is said to be given in cash. Further, the appellant for wherewithal submits that he had received the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 17.11.2018 and Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.11.2018 from one Darani. The said Rs.19,00,000/- had been withdrawn on the same day. During cross examination, he admits that out of this Rs.19,00,000/- he had given the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and this amount belongs to Darani. When the Court had put a question with regard to the amount of this Rs.19,00,000/-, the appellant admits that this was received from Darani for purchase for a agricultural farm. Thus, the respondent sent the reply notice Ex.P6, have given the details of earlier transaction and also denied receipt of loan of Rs.5,00,000/- questioned the appellant’s wherewithal and appellant misusing the signed blank cheque. Though, feeble attempt has been made by marking Ex.P7 the income tax returns for the assessment year 2019 and 2020 the loan given to the respondent does not reflect. Added to it the income tax returns have been filed only on 02.10.2019 after the statutory notice and the reply notice and defence. Thus, considering all these aspects, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint.

10. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Prakashan v. P.K.Surenderan reported in (2008) 1 SCC 258, for the point that if two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible to be taken. The appellate Court jurisdiction to interfere in case of the appeal against acquittal is limited. Hence, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the lower Court is not to be disturbed. This Court finds the trial Court had given detailed and well reasoned judgment and finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. EP CRL A No. 756 of 2023 21-09-2026