Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 K.K.Ramesh ... Appellant Vs. C.Mahesh ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 419 (2) of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records relating to order dated 04.03.2025 made in STC No.176 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam and set aside the same. For Appellant : Mr.N.Manoharan JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment passed in STC No.176 of 2018 dated 04.03.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, whereby the complaint was dismissed and the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 2. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused. The appellant has lodged a complaint against the respondent alleging that on 22.04.2018, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs and on the same day, he issued a post dated cheque for the said sum. After due consideration, the said cheque was presented for collection, however, it was returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. After issuing the statutory notice, the appellant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken cognizance by the trial Court. 3. During the trial, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined and no documents were produced. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondent not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. He further submitted that the respondent did not deny the signature on the cheque and further, even after receiving the statutory notice, the respondent did not even reply to it. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 6. A Perusal of records reveals that according to the appellant, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs on 22.07.2018 by issuing a post dated cheque dated 29.05.2018. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged. 7. The specific case of the appellant is that when he was doing coconut business, he became acquainted with the respondent and at that time, the respondent had borrowed the said amount from him. However, during cross examination, the appellant/PW1 stated that he did not even https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 know the address of the respondent, his family details or the business run by him. 8. The cross examination of PW1/appellant is extracted hereunder:- “1/ vdf;Fk; vjphpf;Fk; nj';fha; tut[ bryt[ ,Ue;jJ/ mjid fhl;Ltjw;F Mtzk; cs;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ ehd; v';fSf;Fs; Vw;fdnt tut[ bryt[ ,Ue;jij g[fhhpnyh Kjy; tprhuizapnyh brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vjphpapd; nj';fha; fil bgah; bjhpa[kh vd;why; bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; miHg;ngrp vz; bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; je;ij bgah; bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; nj';fha; Fnlhd; Kfthp bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; tPl;L Kfthp kwe;J tpl;lJ/ nj';fha; Fnlhd; v';F cs;sJ vd;Wk; bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; tPL v';F cs;sJ vd;W bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; gog;g[ vdf;F bjhpahJ/ vjphpapd; FLk;g gpd;dzp bjhpahJ.” 9. The appellant categorically admitted that without any security documents, he gave money to the respondent on receipt of the post dated cheque alone, however, he failed to prove that the cheque issued by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 respondent was for a legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the appellant failed to prove the case in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam in STC No.176 of 2018 dated 04.03.2025 and that the trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 01.07.2025 ham Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. ham Crl.A.No.748 of 2025 01.07.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis