Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 U.Murugesan S/o. Urumanagounder, M.S.M.Traders, 123, Sankari Road, Seetharampalayam – 637 209, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs A.S.Sadiq Baasha S/o. Late S.M.Abdul Sukoor, 952/148, 14th Beat, Kanthal Bazaar Par, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 11.03.2021 made in C.A.No.103 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris confirming the judgment dated 05.04.2017 made in S.T.C.No.509 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondent(s): Ms.C.Bharathi Legal Aid Counsel ORDER This Criminal Revision has been preferred as against the judgement dated 11.03.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, in C.A.No.103 of 2017, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, in S.T.C.No.509 of 2016, dated 05.04.2017, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”). 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act alleging that the accused had issued a cheque dated 04.11.2015 towards the loan borrowed by him to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.T.C.No.509 of 2016 and issued summons to the accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 3. In order to prove the complaint, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the accused, no one was examined as witness and no documents were marked to disprove the case of the respondent. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of six months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation to the tune of cheque amount in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Revision Case. 4. Though notice serviced on the respondent and a learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, no one is appeared before this Court either in person or through pleader. Therefore, this Court appointed a Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 5. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner on receipt of the statutory notice issued reply notice which was marked as Ex.P.6 by the respondent. The petitioner categorically replied that he did not know the respondent at any point of time and he did not borrowed any amount from the respondent. Further, the petitioner was abducted by one P.S.Deivaraj and he illegally had taken the cheque leaf from the petitioner. Subsequently, it was misused by the respondent herein to initiate the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. In fact, the said P.S.Deivaraj is facing prosecution before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. Further stated that the petitioner is residing at Udhagamandalam and there is no circumstances to borrow money from the respondent who is residing at Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. Therefore, the petitioner called upon the respondent to return back the cheque leaf, failing which he will be prosecuted under IPC. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the reply notice as follows :- @5/ v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;F c';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuiu ahh; vd;nw bjhpahJ/ Kd;gpd; ghh;j;jJk; fpilahJ/ mt;thW ,Uf;f j';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuhplk; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; U:/12.00.000-?k; fld; th';fpajhf brhy;tJ Kw;wpYk; bgha;/ j';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuiug; gw;wp bjhpe;J bfhs;s j';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuhpd; g[ifg;glj;ij rhd;wpl;L mDg;g nfhUfpwhh;/ j';fsJ mwptpg;gpy; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 brhy;ypa[s;s fhnrhiy v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuuJ my;y/ 6/ v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; mwptpg;g[ bgw;Wf; bfhz;ljw;Fg; gpd; j';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuiug; gw;wp mwpe;Jbfhs;s fhyjhkjk; Vw;gl;ljhy; tprhupj;J bjhpe;J bfhz;L jw;bghGJ ,e;j gjpy; mwptpg;ig bfhLf;fpwhh;/ 7/ v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;Fk;. ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;. jpUr;br';nfhL tl;lk; rp/vr;/gp/ fhydp. bry;ttpehafh; nfhtpy; mUfpy; ghyh$p igdhd;!; elj;jp tUk; Rg;ukzp vd;gthpd; kfd; P.S.bja;tuh$; vd;gtUf;Fkpilna gzk; bfhLf;fy; th';fy; rk;ke;jkhf gpur;rid Vw;gl;L ,Ujug;gpdUk; 20/12/2014k; njjpapnyna tHf;fwp"h; mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpa[k;. nkw;go bja;tuh$; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuiu flj;jpr; brd;W gy;ntW Fw;wr; bray;fs; bra;jjhy; mth;kPJk;. mtUf;F Jizahf ,Ue;jth;fs; kPJk; ey;Y}h; fhty;Jiwapy; g[fhh; bfhLf;fg;gl;L mth;fsJ kPJ gukj;jp khz;g[kpF Fw;wtpay; eLth; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;ifa[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ kl;Lkpd;wp v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; fle;j 20/12/2014k; njjpa mwptpg;gpy; fhnrhiyfs; Fwpj;J brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ fle;J 24/12/2014k; njjpa ehspjHpYk; bghJkf;fSf;fF bghJ mwptpg;g[k; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 bfhLj;Js;shh;/ 8/ nkw;go bja;tuh$; vd;gth; nkw;fz;l mwptpg;g[fshy; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; kPJ bgha; tHf;F nghl ,ayhjjhy; c';fs; fl;rpf;fhuiu J}z;Ltpl;L c';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuUk; ,d;Dk; rpyUk; bja;tuh$; vd;gtUld; Tl;L rjp bra;J ,t;thW mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpa[s;shh; vd mDkhdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,k;khjphpna fd;dpahFkhp khtl;lk;. tz;zhd;tpis. mg;ght[ ehlhh; kfd; fz;zd; vd;gtUk; mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpa[s;shh;/ c';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; Fw;w rjpf;F cle;ijahf ,Ue;J nghyp fhnrhiyia cUthf;fp rl;lKuzhd tifapy; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuhplk; gzk; gwpf;f Kaw;rpf;Fk; braYf;F c';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; kPJk; bja;tuh$; kPJk; ,e;jpa jz;lid rl;lk; 120(b). 465. 467. 468. 469 kw;Wk; 471 ?d; fPH; tHf;fpl;L jf;f jz;lid bgw;Wj; jUk; tha;g;g[ cz;L/ nkYk; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; bja;tuh$; vd;gth; kPJk; kw;wth;fs; kPJk; bjhlh;e;Js;s Fw;wtpay; tHf;fpy; rhl;rpfisa[k; v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuiua[k; kpul;o Fw;wtpay; tHf;if thg!; bgw itf;f mth;fsJ ez;gh;fis itj;J gy;ntW tifapy; kpul;LtJld; ,t;thW fhnrhiyfis itj;J gy;ntW tHf;Ffis bjhlh;e;J fl;lhag;gLj;jp thg!; bgw itf;Fk; xU https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 Kaw;rp vd mDkhdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ vdnt bja;tuh$; vd;gtUf;F neh;Kfkhfnth. KiwKfkhfnth rl;lKuzhd tifapy; mtUf;F vt;tpj cjtpa[k; bra;a ntz;lhk; vd c';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;F jf;f mwpt[iu tH';f v';fsJ fl;rpf;fhuh; ntz;Lfpwhh;/@ 6. Thus, the petitioner categorically rebutted the initial presumption as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not cross-examine the respondent and did not produce any evidence in support of his contention.When the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probability, the entire burden shifted on the shoulder of the respondent herein. However, the respondent did not prove that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. But the respondent failed to prove the same. 7. That apart, except the cheque which was marked as Ex.P.1, no other documents were received for the purpose of security for lending the loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. In fact, the respondent did not even whisper about that on which date the petitioner borrowed the loan amount. No prudent person would lend such a huge amount without any document. Further though the petitioner did not dispute the signature found in the cheque, he vehemently disputed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 issuance of cheque and the way on which, the same was obtained from the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner was that the said P.S.Deivaraj abducted the petitioner and take away the cheques from the petitioner. 8. In view of the above discussions, the findings of both the Courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgement dated 11.03.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, in C.A.No.103 of 2017, and the judgement dated 05.04.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, in S.T.C.No.509 of 2016, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges in S.T.C.No.509 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 27.03.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rts https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 To 1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts Crl.R.C.No.315 of 2021 27.03.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis