Madras High Court
CRL A/794/2016 of M.DURAI, AGED 40 YEARS Vs R.KALAISELVAN on 12 October 2026
CRL A No. 794 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 794 of 2016
CNR: {HCMA010691802016}
M.Durai
..Appellant(s)
Vs
R.Kalaiselvan,
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the accused made in S.T.C.No.301 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode dated 11.01.2016.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Singaravelu
Legal Aid Counsel
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.301 of 2015 holding the respondent not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had issued two cheques each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of one M.Periyasamy Gounder & Company; that the appellant was was the holder in due course; that
CRL A No. 794 of 2016
when the cheques were presented for collection, it was returned for the reason 'funds insufficient'; that in spite of statutory notice, the respondent had not made any payment; and thus, is liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. Before the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. The respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any documents. The trial Court found that the appellant had not established that he was holder in due course and acquitted the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of PW1/appellant would show that he was the holder in due course; that he is entitled to present the cheque in that capacity; and the fact that the payee of the cheque was not examined would not be a ground for acquitting the respondent.
5. Heard, the learned counsel for the respondent, who would submit that no evidence has been let in by the appellant to prove that he was holder in due course and the Judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference.
6. It is seen that admittedly, the appellant was not the payee of the cheque. The payee of the cheque was one M.Periyasamy Gounder & Company. Except for the oral evidence of PW1, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the appellant was the payee in due course entitled to present the cheque on behalf of
CRL A No. 794 of 2016
the payee. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held that the appellant had also not established that he had obtained the cheque for consideration. In the light of the factual finding, which is plausible, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for, as there is no perversity warranting such interference.
7. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
8. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the scheduled fees to Mr. Singaravelu, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.
CRL A No. 794 of 2016
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 794 of 2016 12-10-2026