Madras High Court
Mr.Arjun Vikram vs B.Vijay Anand on 17 April, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 17.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
Arjun Vikram .... Petitioner in both Crl.R.Cs
Vs
B.Vijay Anand .... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1413/2022
Ashok .... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1414/2022
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside
the Judgment in Crl.Appeal.No.176 of 2019 dated 16.06.2022 on the file of the
VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, which is confirming the
Judgment and conviction in C.C.No.12002 of 2014 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore at Allikulam,
Chennai, on 07.03.2019 and acquit the petitioner from all the charges.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside
the Judgment in Crl.Appeal.No.175 of 2019 dated 16.06.2022 on the file of the
VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, which is confirming the
Judgment and conviction in C.C.No.3274 of 2016 on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore at Allikulam,
Chennai, on 25.03.2019 and acquit the petitioner from all the charges.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sukumar
(in both Crl.R.Cs) for Mr.Um. Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.Venktesan
(in Crl.R.C.No.1413/2022)
For Respondent : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
(in Crl.R.C.No.1414/2022) for Mr.M.Sankar
COMMON ORDER
Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 has been filed against the Judgment 16.06.2022 passed in C.A.No.176 of 2019 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, thereby confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.12002 of 2014, dated 07.03.2019, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022 has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed in C.A.No.175 of 2019 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, thereby confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.3274 of 2016, dated 25.03.2019, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
3. Though the present revisions are arising out of different Calendar Cases and Criminal Appeals involving different respondents/complainants, the accused in both the cases is one and the same. The complainants, who are brothers, had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the very same transaction.
4. In Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022, the respondent is the complainant, who lodged a complaint to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the accused approached him for the procurement of property on his behalf and assured that the same will be registered within a period of six months. The accused had shown 3 to 4 properties and received money from the complainant on various occasions to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. However, the accused neither entered into any agreement nor returned the money, instead he assured that the same would be repaid within a period of six months. In order to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the same was presented for collection. However, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After causing a statutory notice, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
5. In order to prove the case, the respondent/complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
6. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also awarded compensation to the tune of double the cheque amount, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
7. In Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022, the respondent/complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, alleging that the accused had received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- from the respondent, his brother, who is the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022, and his sister one Anitha Malini, on various dates between November 2010 and May 2014, on the pretext of negotiating and purchasing three grounds of land at Jamin Pallavaram. The accused assured that he would repay the entire amount 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 if he failed to negotiate and purchase the said property. The accused also executed a voluntary undertaking on 10.05.2015 and admitted his liability. For the purpose of security, the accused also executed three promissory notes to the value of Rs.15,00,000/- each and also issued three post dated cheques for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each. When the said cheques were presented for collection and the same were dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. After causing a statutory notice, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
8. In order to prove the case, the respondent/complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also awarded compensation to the tune of double the cheque amount, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. However, the 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
10. In both the revisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Though the accused did not enter the witness box or produce any material evidence, he categorically rebutted the presumption through cross examination of P.W.1. In both the complaints, the complainants/respondents did not even state the specific dates or places where and when the amounts were allegedly paid to the accused. The complainants did not even whisper about their acquaintance with the petitioner to approach him for procurement of property. No prudent person would part with amounts that too to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- to procure the property without any security documents. Admittedly, the accused did not own any property and he has to procure property from third parties, even then the complainants paid a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- that too without any documents. In order to substantiate the same, the complainants/respondents did not even produce any piece of evidence to show that they had parted with the said amount to the accused for procurement of property.
6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
11. In fact, the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022, though stated in his complaint that the accused executed three promissory notes, each for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, the same were not produced before the Trial Court. During the cross examination of the complainant, the accused categorically rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the entire burden shifted to the shoulder of the respondent to prove that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt. However, the complainant failed to prove the same and even then, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court mechanically convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. In the complaint filed by the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022, it is averred that the accused issued cheque with an intention to deceive and defraud the complainant of the rightful dues payable by the accused in respect of the goods more fully described in the invoice issued by the complainant. On the other hand, in the preamble portion of the very same complaint, the complainant categorically averred that the accused received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on various dates for the purpose of procuring property and had assured to register the same in favour of the complainant. Both the averments were contradictory to each other. Further, in order to substantiate the 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 contention, the complainant failed to produce any piece of evidence before the Trial Court, except the cheque. Thus, apart from the cheque, no other documents were produced to substantiate the claim. Though the accused did not issue any reply notice and did not examine any witnesses, he categorically rebutted the presumption while cross examining the complainant.
13. During the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused made statement that he received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainants and their sister for the purpose of procuring property, since they did not know the owner of the property. According to him, after receipt of the said amount, the same was handed over to the land owner. Therefore, he was compelled to execute Ex.P1 dated 10.05.2014 and to issue cheque for security purpose. It is his specific case that the cheque was not issued for any debt or liability payable to the complainants and their sister. The accused further stated that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was handed over to the land owner, for which he stood as a security and that he had never borrowed any loan amount from the complainants and their sister. Therefore, according to him, the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability, but only for security purpose. Unfortunately, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court convicted the accused only on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022 submitted that though the accused denied the issuance of the cheque for any legally enforceable debt, he categorically admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he executed Ex.P1 in which he admitted his liability to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/-. Further, the accused failed to examine any third party, viz., the alleged land owner, to whom he handed over the money, which was received from the complainants, for the purpose of procuring the property. After receipt of the said amount, the land owner failed to execute any sale deed in favour of the complainants/respondents. The petitioner has admitted his signature and issuance of the cheque. Therefore, the complainant discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and presumed that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though, the presumption is rebuttable in nature, the accused failed to rebut the same and as such, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 submitted that the accused approached the complainant for procurement of property and also assured that the same would 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 be registered within a period of six months, pursuant to which, he received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on various dates. However, the accused failed to procure any property and in order to repay the amount, issued the cheque. Therefore, the said cheque was not issued for any security purpose. The accused has admitted his signature on the cheque and also issuance of the cheque. Therefore, the complainant/respondent discharged his initial burden and even then the accused failed to rebut the presumption. He further submitted that though the accused stated in his statement that the amount, which was received by him, was handed over to the land owner, the accused failed to examine so called the land owner to substantiate the same. Therefore, the accused failed to rebut the presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
17. In both the revisions, the accused is one and the same and the respondents/complainants are different persons. Though, the 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 respondents/complainants are different persons, they are own brothers. According to the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022, the accused received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- from both the respondents and their sister on various dates between November 2010 and May 2014, on the pretext of negotiating and purchasing three grounds of land at Jamin Pallavaram. The accused assured that he would repay the entire amount, along with interest, if he failed to negotiate and procure the said property. The accused had also executed a voluntary undertaking dated 10.05.2014 to that effect. For security purpose, the accused had also executed three promissory notes each for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and issued three post-dated cheques, each for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, dated 01.03.2016. The accused requested the respondent to await completion of the transaction until the end of the year 2015, failing which the cheques could be presented for encashment.
18. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022, reveals that he did not even whisper about the payment of Rs.75,00,000/- by the two brothers and sister for the purpose of procuring the property. On the contrary, the complainant has specifically averred that he had paid only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused to procure the property. However, the accused failed to procure any property and in order 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 to repay the amount, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- bearing No.958721, dated 02.09.2014. Whereas, the other three cheques, which were allegedly issued for security purpose to the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022 bearing Nos.958722, 958723 and 958724 dated 01.03.2016. Therefore, it shows that all the cheques were issued at different points of time and, prima facie, supports the contention that they were issued for the purpose of security at the time of execution of Ex.P1.
19. In fact, the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 did not even whisper about the so called voluntary undertaking dated 10.05.2014. Further, the complainant averred in his complaint that the accused had committed an act of wilful and deliberate dishonouring of the cheque with an intention of deceiving and defrauding the complainant of the rightful dues payable by the accused in respect of the goods morefully described in the invoice issued by him. It is completely contradictory to the earlier averments that the accused issued cheque, in order to repay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which was received by the complainant, to procure the property in favour of the complainants. Therefore, both the complainants had averred completely different state of facts against the same accused. However, both the complainants averred that the money was received by the accused to procure the 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 property. No prudent person would part with a huge amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to procure property, without any security documents. In fact, the entire amount was allegedly paid by cash. Even assuming that the accused received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- to procure the property in favour of the complainants and their sister, the total liability towards the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022 is Rs.45,00,000/-, for which the accused executed three promissory notes for the purpose of security and also handed over three post dated cheques for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each.
20. However, the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 did not even whisper about the said facts and he specifically averred that the accused received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from him for the purpose of procuring property. Even assuming that his share was Rs.15,00,000/-, no action has been taken either by the other complainant or by their sister, viz., Anitha Malini, in respect of the remaining amount. Further, though the accused did not issue any reply notice, he categorically cross examined by the complainant in both the cases. During the cross examination, the complainant categorically deposed that he did not know the date on which the alleged payment was made in favour of the accused. First of all, no prudent person would part with such a huge amount without any security and without any documents. Secondly, no prudent 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 person would not remember the date on which such a huge amount was allegedly paid to another person to procure the property. Further, the accused admitted that all the cheques were handed over for security purpose at the time of execution of so called undertaking affidavit. Therefore, the accused categorically rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even then, the complainant failed to prove that the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt. Even according to the complainants, the amounts were allegedly paid to the accused only for the purpose of procuring property.
21. The specific stand of the accused is that, after receipt of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022, the same was handed over to the land owner. However, the land owner dragged to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and as such, the accused had executed an undertaking affidavit for the purpose of security and also issued post dated cheques as security. Therefore, no amount consideration was passed in favour of the accused to issue the cheque for any legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt to attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unfortunately, the Trial Court, placing undue reliance on the statement recorded under Section 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
22. It is relevant to extract the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows : 15/27 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 1 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
23. Thus, it is clear that the accused categorically stated that, in respect of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, he stood as a guarantor and that the said amount was paid to the land owner. The presumption that automatically arises in favour of the complainant is not an absolute one and the accused is entitled to rebut the same by way of 'preponderance of probabilities' i.e., by establishing a reasonable and an acceptable probability which could throw a suspicion in the case posed by the complainant. In the case on hand, the accused established reasonable and acceptable probabilities that the cheques were issued for security purpose and the same have been misused by the respondents. Therefore, the cheques were not issued for any existing legally enforceable debt or liability. Even then, the respondents failed to prove that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt by producing any piece of material evidence. In fact, raising a mere suspicion even from out of the materials produced by the complainant as projected by the complainant suffices to satisfy the factum of probable defence. Further, the accused need not entered into the witness box to rebut the presumption.
24. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54 in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs.Dattatraya G.Hegde, wherein it has been held as follows :
17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 “31.The Courts below, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that Section 139 raises a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. The Courts below, in our opinion, committed a serious error in proceeding on the basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the witness box and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden. Such an approach on the part of the courts, we feel, is not correct.
32.An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on record. An accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different.
33.In Bharat Barrel & Drum Mgf. Co. V. Amin Chand Payrelal interpreting Section 118(a) of the Act, this Court opined: (SCC pp.50-51, para 12) “12. Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration.
Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariable be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt.”
34.Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is “preponderance of probabilities”. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
35.A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. The question as to whether the presumption whether should rebutted or not, must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidence on record. For the said purpose, stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative. In a case of this 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 nature, where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration.”
25. Therefore, once the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence and discharges the initial onus of proof by showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the accused to prove the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
26. In the case on hand, in both the complaints, the accused rebutted the presumption by bringing on record a probable defence, based on the preponderance of probabilities and by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. According to the respondents, the amounts were paid to the accused for the purpose of procuring property on their behalf. In turn, the accused handed over the said money to the original owner of the property. 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 However, the original owner dragged the proceedings without execution of any sale deed. The accused was compelled to execute an undertaking affidavit and also issued cheques and promissory notes for the purpose of security. In fact the complainants failed to mark the alleged promissory notes executed by the accused. That apart, the stand taken by the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 is completely different from that of the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022. Therefore, such inconsistencies and contradictions in the case of the complainants are sufficient to rebut the presumption arising under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
27. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants contended that the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is nothing but a clear admission of liability on the part of the accused and it differs only with regard to the quantum of debt. However, such a contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the accused categorically stated that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid on various dates by the complainants and the same was handed over to the original land owner. Therefore, the accused was compelled to execute the undertaking affidavit and to issue the cheques. Insofar as the case of the complainant in Crl.R.C.No.1413 of 2022 is concerned, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : 21/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 1 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 1
28. Thus, it is clear that the complainants did not hand over any money to the accused. According to the defence, the amounts received from the complainants were paid to the land owner. However, the land owner failed to execute the sale deed and failed to obtain patta in respect of the said land. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to issue the cheque for the purpose of security and stood as a guarantor. That apart, the cheque bearing No.928721, dated 02.09.2014, was issued prior to the other cheques, which were allegedly issued by the accused in Crl.R.C.No.1414 of 2022, dated 01.03.2016. Further, 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 the accused marked Ex.D1, an e-mail dated 10.06.2011, it shows that the alleged payments were made to the accused till 24.01.2011 that too to a limited extend. However, the cheque was issued on 02.09.2014, i.e., after a lapse of more than three years from the alleged payments. Firstly, the complainants failed to specify the exact dates on which the alleged payments were made. Secondly, the cheque was issued after a lapse of more than three years i.e., dated 02.09.2014. It is clearly barred by limitation and as such, the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since, the date itself is barred by limitation and the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Unfortunately, without considering the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court mechanically convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
29. The learned counsel for the respondents/complainants vehemently contented that this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2025 INSC 1158 in the case of 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 Sanjabij Tari Vs. Jishore S.Borcor and another, wherein it has been held that, in the absence of perversity, the Revisional Court ought not to disturb concurrent findings of the fact. It is not the function of the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. The Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by the Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. In the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
30. The above Judgment is not applicable to the case on hand, since this Court finds perversity in the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court has got jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the accused rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probabilities in all the aspects. Therefore, this Court finds that the conclusion arrived at the Courts below are perverse and the conviction and sentence imposed the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court cannot sustained and are liable to be set aside.
25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022
31. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw any amount deposited to the credit of the Trial Court, pursuant to the conditional order passed by this Court, by filing an appropriate application before the Trial Court. It is made clear that the Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount which was already deposited by the petitioner, along with accrued interest, if any, without ordering notice to the complainants/respondents.
32. In the result, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.
30.04.2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking or Non speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Lpp To
1.The VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, 26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp Pre-delivery order in Crl.R.C.Nos.1413 & 1414 of 2022 30.04.2026 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis