[02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: HEAD NOTE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Crl.A.No.329 of 2015 Date of Order: 06.11.2025 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy Parties: – Appellant: S. Mukunchand Bothra (Deceased) M. Gagan Bothra (Son of Late Shri. S. Mukunchand Bothra) – Respondent:* R. Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja Counsel: – For Appellant: Party in person – For Respondent: Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi Court Observation: The trial court acquitted the respondent of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The court noted that the appellant’s witness admitted to filling out the cheque and promissory note, and that the respondent’s defence that the cheque was given as security was plausible. The court also observed that the appellant’s failure to mention these facts in the statutory notice, complaint, or proof affidavit raised doubts about the appellant’s case. [02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: 👍

by Sekar Reporter · December 2, 2025

[02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: *HEAD NOTE*

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS*

Crl.A.No.329 of 2015

*Date of Order:* 06.11.2025

*Coram:*
The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

*Parties:*

– *Appellant:* S. Mukunchand Bothra (Deceased) *M. Gagan Bothra (Son of Late Shri. S. Mukunchand Bothra)
– *Respondent:* R. Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja

*Counsel:*

– *For Appellant:* Party in person
– *For Respondent:* Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi

*Court Observation:*

The trial court acquitted the respondent of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The court noted that the appellant’s witness admitted to filling out the cheque and promissory note, and that the respondent’s defence that the cheque was given as security was plausible. The court also observed that the appellant’s failure to mention these facts in the statutory notice, complaint, or proof affidavit raised doubts about the appellant’s case.
[02/12, 12:58] Sekarreporter: 👍

[01/12, 16:40] Sekarreporter: “For Appellant : Party in person
For Respondent : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
JUDGM E NT
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of the Magistrate- Fast Track Court No. IV, George Town, Chennai, dated 11.05.2015, made in C.C.No.411 of 2013.”

JUSTIC E D. BHA RATHA CHA K R AVA RTH Y Crl.A.No.3 2 9 of 2 0 1 5 S.Mukunchand Bothra (Deceased) *M.Gagan Bothra Son of Late Shri.S.Mukunchand Bothra (*Amended as per order of this Court dated 21.04.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.5152 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.329 of 2015) Vs … Appellant R.Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja … Respondent

[01/12, 16:41] Sekarreporter: JUSTIC E D. BHA RATHA CHA K R AVA RTH Y Crl.A.No.3 2 9 of 2 0 1 5 S.Mukunchand Bothra (Deceased) *M.Gagan Bothra Son of Late Shri.S.Mukunchand Bothra (*Amended as per order of this Court dated 21.04.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.5152 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.329 of 2015) Vs … Appellant R.Krishnamurthy @ Kasthoori Raja … Respondent https://www.sekarreporter.com/justic-e-d-bha-ratha-cha-k-r-ava-rth-y-crl-a-no-3-2-9-of-2-0-1-5-s-mukunchand-bothra-deceased-m-gagan-bothra-son-of-late-shri-s-mukunchand-bothra-amended-as-per-order-of-this-court-dated-21-0/
[01/12, 16:45] Sekarreporter: “The findings of the Trial Court, neither being perverse nor an
impossible view, cannot be upturned in an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.
06.11.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes ssa
To
1. The IV Magistrate, Fast Track Court, George Town, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
D.BHARATHA CHA K RAVA RTH Y, J.”