Conviction setaside Ms.A.Prabavathi, B.Com., M.L., XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Thursday, the 12th day of February, 2026 Criminal Appeals No. 516 /202 4 against S.T.C.No.1105/2017 CNR.No. TNCH01- 028143 – 2024

IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT, ALLIKULAM
Present: Ms.A.Prabavathi, B.Com., M.L., XXI Additional Sessions Judge,
Thursday, the 12th day of February, 2026
Criminal Appeals No. 516 /202 4 against
S.T.C.No.1105/2017
CNR.No. TNCH01- 028143 – 2024
1. Name of the Court against
whose Judgment the Appeal is filed : Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC–IV, George Town, Chennai.
2. Name and Address of the Appellant/Accused : 1. JSK Film Corporation,
Rep. by proprietor,

3. Name and Address of the Respondent/complainant :
4. Nature of order passed by the
Trial Judge :
J.Satish Kumar, No.47, Giriyappa Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2. Mr.J.Satish Kumar No.9/3, Vaithiyaraman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
M.Sandeep Bothra
Rep. by his Power Agent M.Gagan Bothra
S/o.Late S.Mukanchand Bothra, No.43/44, Veerappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai has convicted the accused 1 and 2 for the offence u/s.138 NI Act and sentenced the
2nd accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the accused 1 and 2 to pay the compensation

amount of Rs.47,00,000/- (cheque amount) with interest 3% per annum from the date of dishonour of case cheque to till date to the complainant u/s.357 of Cr.P.C within one month, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. In the Appeal finding of the Court : In the result, this appeal is allowed and the finding of the trial court in convicting the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.1105/2017 dated 26.06.2024 u/s 138 NI Act is set aside. The accused 1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence u/s 138 NI Act. The deposits made by the accused towards the credit of the case shall be refunded to the appellants/accused after appeal time is over. Bail bond if any executed by accused in this case stands canceled after appeal time is over.
6. Date of Filing of the Appeal : 19.07.2024
7. Date of taken on file : 23.07.2024
8. Date of Argument : 22.01.2026
9. Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
This Criminal Appeal came for final hearing on 22.01.2026 before this Court in the presence of M/s.L.Infant Dinesh, A.John, K.Ragavan, V.K.Ginesh, S.Mohan
Kumar and R.Madhu Vinoth, counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Gagan Bothra,
Power of Attorney of the respondent appeared as party-in-person and on perusing the grounds of appeal, other relevant documents and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai wherein they have been convicted for the offence u/s.138 NI Act and the 2nd accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the accused 1 and 2 to pay the compensation amount of Rs.47,00,000/- with interest 3% per annum from the date of dishonour of cheque to till date u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C within one month, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. T he case of the c omplainant is as follows:
That the case of the complainant is that the 2nd accused borrowed a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- on behalf of the 1st accused for its business purpose from the complainant and executed necessary documents in favour of the complainant and after repeated request of complainant the 1st accused issued the cheque No.000513 dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.47,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, T.Nagar Branch which was signed by the 2nd accused and the same was presented by the complainant with his banker namely IDBI Bank Ltd., Parrys Branch, Chennai and the said cheque was returned vide return memo dated 29.03.2017, for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant had issued legal notice dated 05.04.2017 and the same was delivered to the accused but the accused did not come forward to make the payment.
Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus the accused is stated to have committed an offence u/s.138 NI Act.
3. The accused faced trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast
Track Court – IV, George Town, Chennai. Before the trial court, the Power of Attorney of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked and on the side of the accused Thiru.Namachivayam, friend of the accused was examined DW1, Thiru.K.Rajeshkanna, Inspector of Police was examined as DW2, Thiru.Harishankar, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, T.Nagar was examined as DW3 and the accused examined himself as DW4 and Exhibit D1 to D3 were marked. The Scientific Officer, Forensic Sciences Department Tmt.R.Subha was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were marked. Ex.X1 was marked through DW2. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence u/s.138 NI Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the compensation amount of Rs.47,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 3% per annum from the date of dishonour of cheque to till date u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C within one month, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same the appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused.
4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court the accused preferred the appeal among the following grounds.
5. Grounds of Appeal:
That when the appellant approached Mr.Mukanchand Bothra and his sons Mr. Sandeep Bothra and Mr. Gagan Bothra in February 2017 for full and final settlement of the Loan as he couldn’t able to bare towards the exorbitant interest, they deliberately dragged time by giving one or other vague reasons that they are quite busy with many other important works and also in filing income tax in March 2017, hence requested to be patient, thus the appellant remained silent after listening to what they said and that in due course of time, Mr.Mukanchand Bothra and his sons, without any prior intimation had deposited the following security cheques on
22.03.2017 & 29.03.2017 in the names of various persons as follows.
1. Cheque No. 000512 for Rs. 45,00,000/- (Forty Five Lakhs only)
2. Cheque No, 000513 for Rs.47,00,000/- (Forty Seven Lakhs only)
3. Cheque No. 000514 for Rs. 39,00,000/- (Thirty Nine Lakhs only)
4. Cheque No. 823622 for Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lakhs only)
5. Cheque No. 823623 for Rs.32,00,000/- (Thirty Two Lakhs only)
That the appellant approached them to know about the amount filled up in the cheques issued, for which they demanded the appellant to pay Rs. One Crores which is inclusive of thandal interest towards the balance due of 11,70,000/-. If the appellant refused to accept the above the demand, then they will use the return memo of the above five cheques of the appellant and will take necessary steps to collect Rs. 1,98,00,000/- by imitating legal proceedings. That though the appellant had settled his entire loan amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs with exorbitant interest and obtained a clearance letter dated 18.07.2017 from them and had returned back all the security documents including the above-mentioned cheques and all other documents vested with them on the very same date on 18.07.2017. That though the original return cheques got handed over and destroyed in front of the appellant on 18.07.2017,the complainant did not withdraw as promised. That the appellant had filed a complaint before the Central Crime Branch – I, Chit and Kanduvatti Wing, Vepery, Chennai to take appropriate action against Mr.Mukanchand Bothra and his Sons. That in Crime No. 213/ 2017 dated 17,07.2017 under section 420,465,467,468,471 & 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC, under section 3 & 4 of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and they all got remanded to judicial custody on 25.07.2017 and later came out of bail. Even on the day of arrest on 25.07.2017, the complainant had reaffirmed that they had cancelled all the transactions between the appellant, on which the appellant not preferred to file an intervening petition at the time of bail. That the appellant filed a return of property petition before CCB – CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egniore, Chennai in Crl.Mp.No.383 & 384 of 2018 in Crime No.213 of 2017 and got ordered on 15.02.2018. That after 2 years, the complainant filed a petitions under section 63 of the Evidence Act in CrI.Mp.No.10596, 10603 & 10608 of 2019 on 24th September 2019 permitting him for marking the xerox copy of the cheque as secondary documents or evidence and it was dismissed. That aggrieved by the above stated dismissal order, the complainant filed a revision petition under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C before this Hon’blc Court in CrI.RC.No. 1166, 1167 & 1168 of 2022 to set aside the order dated 27.06.2022 whereas the Hon’ble High Court held that the issue be decided by the trial court after letting in evidence. That the present complaint had not been filed by the complainant and been filed by his power agent only. At any instance, the original complainant never appeared before the trail court to prove his Bonafede. That the appellant marked the bank statement for the amount which he borrowed from the complainant that was not taken into consideration at all by the trail court and mechanically passed an order by convicting the accused in all the 3 cases filed by the complainant. That nowhere is the complaint filed by the complainant has stated the actual total liability and the amount filled out in each cheque by the complainant is more than the actual principal loan of 15 lakhs, which clearly reveals the intention of the complainant behind such false claim. The settlement letter was subjected to expert opinion and it got to be known that, deliberately they have not signed it properly as it was not signed before the accused and only the names under the sign was written before the complainant and infront of the accused all the said cheques was teared in to pieces which was deposed by both DWl and DW-4. The forensic report says that “pictorial appearance not similar and like must be compared to like” and the trail court itself recorded in page 16 para 16 that CW-I, the opinion could not be given by the expert since it is in scribbled manner. That when the cheques had been teared into pieces, the complainant ought to prove the existence of cheque either with the police or with him, when he failed to prove it, the court considered it bluntly as secondary evidence violating the procedures laid by the supreme court in Gurusharan Sahu Vs Chumman Lal Sinha case. That secondly in Judgment order page 6 in DW-2 statement, though the seizure list been marked as Ex.XI with objection, the trail court failed to take the signature of the Investigation Officer in it. It is clearly stated by him that “there is no details in the case dairy about the said cheque was returned to the complainant or not because there is no form 95 available in this case’’. That the basic right of the accused has been denied as the previous Investigation Officer got transferred by such vague reasons, which had not let the accused to rebut the same by establishing further probable defence. That the complainant has stated in his deposition before the trial court that the police themselves have filled out in the seizure Mahazar as if they have seized the empty stamp papers of the appellants and also have stated that, the listed documents in the said mahazar are half true and half false and failed to disclose the status of subsequent cheque handed over to him and its status. That from the day one of the cases, he had rebut the presumptions raised under section 118(a) and section 139 of NI Act as his blank cheques have been misused by the complainant to file such a false case against him with the relevant bank statements as well photo graphs along with the video taken at the time of singing the cheques which was not all taken into account by the trail court. That the trial court failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant counsel in the written and additional written arguments filed. That the complainant had filed the case only for extortion of undue money by filing such false complaint by misusing the signed blank cheques even after settling the admitted liability of 15 Lakhs with appropriate interest. That the complainant had not brought the dates and events of the amount given to the accused neither in the demand notice, complaint / deposition before the court. That when there are no black money transactions involved, why he has not provided the receipts towards the amount catered beyond 50,000/- to the accused nor submitted the Income Tax Returns before this court for such legal transactions. That on preponderance of probability the complaint failed to prove liability as to cash transaction and also the document date differs with document entered. That the complainant had stated in his deposition that, he can’t recollect the transactions dates as well as well as the amounts repaid by the paid by appellant / accused which clearly proves that the liability arrived by him is false and that too Rs.60,00,000/- cash transacted during demonetisation time is an exaggerated one. That in C.C.No. 1105 of 2017, the complainant brother Mr. Sandeep Bolhra was the Principal Lender, in such instance why he was not examined as a witness before this Court, nor his IT Returns filed along with the other exhibits marked. That the complainant had also failed to prove that the disputed cheque was given only for the discharge of the said pro-note debt before the trial court. That when the complainant is in a habit of obtaining pronotes from the accused for every transaction, why the pronote marked only in his brother’s case in C.C.No.ll05/2017 alone and not available in the other two cases C.C.No.l106/2017 &
C.C.No.I033/2017. That the appellant states that, no prudent person will obtain one another cheque from any person after a week’s time, when the first two cheques got bounced, instead of Cash/FT/DD. Further, the complainant stated that, he had received 11-12 lakhs as interest for the 3 crores rupees, whereas 3 % interest for 6 months for the said 3 crores must be around 54 Lakhs. That the trial court without properly analyzing the oral and the documentary evidence on both the sides, erroneously concluded the accused is liable to pay the debt for which he issued cheques. That the preponderance of liability is made and presumption was rebutted and the complainant failed to prove that there was any existing liability as alleged.
Therefore the conviction of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
6. Points for consideration:
For convenient sake the parties are referred to in this appeal as per their rank in the trial court.
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused has not rebutted the presumption in favour of the complainant? 2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused u/s.138 NI Act?
3. Whether the Judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.1105/2017 dated 26.06.2024 is liable to be set aside?
7. Points No.1 and 2:
7(i). Heard. Records perused. There are three cases interse among the parties and for convenience sake and better understanding the details are as below:
C.C.No. Complainant Accused Date of cheque Cheque No.
and Bank Amount
1105/2017 M.Sandeep Bothra 1. JSK Film
Corporation, Rep. by Proprietor, J.Satish Kumar

2. J.Satish Kumar 28.03.2017 000513,
Andhra Bank,
T.Nagar
Branch Rs.47,00,000/-
1106/2017 M.Gagan Bothra 1. JSK Film
Corporation, Rep. by Proprietor, J.Satish Kumar

2. J.Satish Kumar 22.03.2017 000512,
Andhra Bank,
T.Nagar
Branch Rs.45,00,000/-
1033/2017 M.Gagan Bothra J.Satish Kumar 22.03.2017 823622, ICICI Bank, T.Nagar Branch Rs.35,00,000/-
7(ii). The case of the complainant is that the 2nd accused borrowed a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- on behalf of the 1st accused for its business purpose from the complainant and executed necessary documents in favour of the complainant and after repeated request of complainant the 1st accused issued the cheque No.000513 dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.47,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, T.Nagar Branch which was signed by the 2nd accused and the same was presented by the complainant with his banker namely IDBI Bank Ltd., Parrys Branch, Chennai and the said cheque was returned vide return memo dated 29.03.2017, for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant had issued legal notice dated 05.04.2017 and the same was delivered to the accused but the accused did not come forward to make the payment and hence committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
7(iii). Per contra the case of the accused is that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- only and the blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers and blank papers given as security have been misused by the complainant by filling exorbitant amount in the cheques given for security purpose and that there is no legally enforceable debt as claimed by the complainant and that as per the settlement letter dated 18.07.2017 the entire debt has been cleared by the accused and the blank signed documents given by the accused while availing the loan was returned by the complainant’s father S.Mukanchand Bothra and the cheques involved in this case
(C.C.No.1105 of 2017) as well as in the connected other two cases
(C.C.No.1106/2017 and C.C.No.1033/2017) were destroyed on 18.07.2017 by Mukandchand Bothra when the settlement letter was issued and for this reason only the complainant had not produced the original cheques in all the three cases and only color Xerox of the same was produced and that the cheque Ex.P1 which was given towards security purpose has been misused by the complainant and therefore the cheque was not issued towards legally enforceable debt and hence offence U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is not attracted.
7(iv). The complainant party-in-person argued that the execution and the signature in the cheque Ex.P1 was not denied by the accused and hence the complainant is entitled to draw the presumption under Sec.118 and Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and that the accused failed to rebut the presumption and therefore the trial court had rightly convicted the accused.
7(v). The the signature of 2nd accused in the cheque Ex.P1 is not denied by the accused. Hence the complainant is entitled to draw the presumption U/Sec.118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which is extracted below.
Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is as follows:
“118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. – Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: The Accused issued the cheque
for
(a) of consideration – that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn forconsideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b) as to date:− that every Negotiable Instrument bearing date was made ordrawn on such date;
Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act is as follows:
“139. Presumption in favour of holder.− It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”
7(vi). On plain perusal of the provisions under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I.Act., as extracted herein above, it can be seen that initially the presumptions constituted under these two provisions are in favour of the complainant. However, it is open to an accused to raise a defence to rebut the statutory presumption by questioning the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability.
7(vii). It is settled law that the accused can rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant either by producing evidence or from the materials and evidence adduced by the complainant himself. In this case the accused has examined his friend Thiru.Namachivayam as DW1, Thiru.Rajesh Kanna, Inspector of Police, CCB, Chennai as DW2, Thiru.Harishankar, Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, T.Nagar as DW3 and the accused examined himself as DW4 and marked the pendrive and photos as Ex.D1 and Xerox copy of Settlement letter dated 18.07.2017 as Ex.D2 (original filed in C.C.No.1033 of 2017) and the Statement of Account for the month of December 2016 as Ex.D3. The Seizure Mahazar has been marked as
Ex.X1 through DW2. The Scientific Officer from TNFSL., Chennai Mrs.R.Subha was examined as CW1 and the Forensic Report dated 07.08.2023 is marked as Ex.C1 and the copy of enlarged signatures marked A1 to A24, Q1 to Q5 and S1 to S5 (34 nos.) is marked as Ex.C2 series. Therefore from the evidence available on record it has to be seen whether the accused was successful in rebutting the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant by preponderance of probabilities.
7(viii). It is settled preposition of law that the initial burden lies on the defendant to prove the non existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would leave the court to disbelieve the non existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful and the accused can prove the same by raising a probable defence and the standard of proof required is one that of preponderance of probabilities and not the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as is caste upon the prosecution in a criminal trial. The accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence to prove his defence theory and once the accused is able to discharge this initial onus of proving the non existence of a legally enforceable debt, onus shifts to the complainant to prove that a legally enforceable debt exists and the cheque was issued towards discharge of the said debt either in full or part.
7(ix). Now keeping this legal principles in mind it has to be seen whether the accused was able to rebut the presumption drawn against him in this case. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the accused had borrowed only
Rs.15,00,000/- and to establish the same, he has marked Ex.D3 Statement of Account wherein on 08.12.2016 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been deposited into the account of the 2nd accused through NEFT from M.Sandeep Bothra and on 19.12.2016 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited into the account of the 2nd accused through NEFT from M.Sandeep Bothra and again on 19.12.2016 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited into the account of the 2nd accused through NEFT from M.Gagan Bothra and again on 19.12.2016 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited into the account of the 2nd accused through NEFT from M.Sandeep Bothra. Therefore from Ex.D3 the accused is able to establish that he has received Rs.15,00,000/- during the month of December 2016. Apart from this document, there is no other document filed in this case to show what is the loan amount that was lent to the accused. Curiously PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence that they would lend money to the borrowers either in cash or through bank transfers at the request of the borrowers and in this case the entire loan amount in all the three cases amounting to Rs.3,10,00,000/- was paid by cash. When Ex.D3 Bank Statement reflects money transfer to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- through bank transfer, the evidence of PW1 that loan was lent only by way of cash is contrary to Ex.D3 and hence the testimony of PW1 lacs credence and therefore it has created a doubt in the case of the complainant.
7(x). Further the very evidence of the complainant examined as PW1 itself has created a doubt and suspicion over the case of the complainant as the complainant is not able to state when the loan was granted, what is the repayments made by the accused and what is the outstanding loan amount which the accused is liable to pay on the date of issuance of the cheque. In the absence of evidence to prove these facts and the contra evidence produced by the accused by way of his Bank Statement of Account to show that the complainant has lent only Rs.15,00,000/- (for all the three cases) to the accused has created a doubt in the case of the complainant. According to the accused as per Ex.D2 the loan obtained by the accused is only Rs.15,00,000/and on settling this loan the documents have been returned back to the accused and the cheque was destroyed (torn) in the presence of the accused and his friend DW1 and hence the original cheque Ex.P1 could not be produced by the complainant and therefore the case of the accused that the blank signed cheques, stamp papers and ordinary green, white papers have been misused by the complainant to extract money from the complainant are all the probabilities that has been showcased by the accused to doubt the case of the complainant, in rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him.
7(xi). On perusal of the complaint as well as the statutory legal notice marked as Ex.P3 the complainant has merely stated that the accused had business dealing with the complainant and for the business purpose of 1st accused and for himself the 2nd accused borrowed loan and executed necessary documents. The complainant has not stated what are all the documents that were executed by the 2nd accused while availing the loan. The complainant has stated that after the demand made by the complainant to repay the amount, the 2nd accused issued the disputed cheque Ex.P1 dated 28.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.47,00,000/- towards discharge of part liability. When the complainant has stated that the disputed cheque was issued towards discharge of part liability he has nowhere stated either in the complaint or in the statutory notice what is the principal amount that was borrowed by the accused and what is the agreed rate of interest for the said loan and also what was the repayments made by the accused either towards the principal or towards the interest and on what date the cheque Ex.P1 was issued by the accused and what is the outstanding liability on the date of issuance of the cheque. The complaint and the legal notice are bereft of the aforesaid vital particulars. When the accused states that the cheque Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of part liability, the complainant is duty bound to say what is the principal amount that was lent to the accused. Though these vital particulars are found missing in the complaint and statutory legal notice when the complainant was confronted with these facts he has deposed that in this case a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was lent to the accused on execution of a Promissory note by the 2nd accused and the same has been marked as Ex.P7 and it is dated 11.08.2016. On perusal of Ex.P7 there is no revenue stamp affixed in the on Demand Promissory Note. However the same has been admitted in evidence and marked by the trial court. The complainant has not stated either in his legal notice or in his complaint that Ex.P7 Promissory Note was executed by 2nd accused and for the first time in his evidence has so stated for which there is no explanation offered by the complainant.
7(xii). Further PW1 has not stated what is the actual principal amount that was lent and the amount outstanding along with interest and what amounts were repaid by the accused as already pointed out above but from the evidence of PW1, PW1 has admitted that they have received about Rs.11 lakhs to Rs.12 lakhs towards interest, when it is so, he has not stated what is the principal amount that was lent to the accused but only contended that the accused had borrowed Rs.3,10,00,000/- in total from the complainant by cash in the following manner under one installment it was Rs.1,50,00,000/- and under another installment it is Rs.50,00,000/- and under installment it is Rs.60,00,000/- which amounts to Rs.2,60,00,000/- and the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- alleged as loan amount in this case and thus in total Rs.3,10,00,000/has been stated to be the principal amount borrowed by the accused. When it is so and when the complainant also admitted that an interest of about Rs.11 -12 lakhs was paid by the accused but unable to say for how many months the accused had paid interest, the non production of the accounts by the complainant so as to establish the existing liability of the accused has only strengthened the doubt created over the complainant’s case.
7(xiii). The learned counsel for the accused argued that after the 2nd accused had lodged a complaint on 09.06.2017 against the complainant’s father Mukanchand Bothra, the complainant M.Sandeep Bothra and the complainant in other two cases M.Gagan Bothra before the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.213 of 2017 on 17.07.207 (and the same is also marked as Ex.P6 in C.C.No.1033 of 2017) and in consequence the complainant and his father and brother had called the accused for settlement and on 18.07.2017 after receipt of the balance amount they had issued a settlement letter acknowledging that the amount lent was only Rs.15,00,000/- and the same was also repaid with interest and the documents executed by the accused at the time of borrowing was handed over to the accused and after withdrawal of the cases they would return the entire documents to the accused and that on the same day the original cheques were destroyed (torn) by the complainant’s father in the presence of the accused and his friend DW1 and hence it was contended that the amount borrowed was only Rs.15,00,000/- and it was repaid. The complainant admitted that the accused had filed a complaint against him. It is his contention that subsequent to the registration of the case in Cr.No.213 of 2017 the complainant, his brother and father were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody on 26.07.2017 and the police had seized as may as about 200 documents, court case bundles from his residence apart from gold, diamond jewels worth Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.1 Crore cash and as the same was not produced before the court, the complainant filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.383/2018 and Crl.M.P.No.384/2018 in Crime No.213/2017 seeking the return of all the documents and property seized by the police and the said petitions were allowed on 15.02.2018 whereby the Magistrate has ordered the Central Crime Branch to handover the documents mentioned in the order to the complainant and according to the complainant, the same was not complied by the police and therefore he was unable to produce the original cheque before the court and hence has marked the color Xerox of the cheque as secondary evidence and therefore denied that the cheques were destroyed. With regard to the non-production of the original cheque though the complainant contended that it was seized by the police under a Seizure Mahazar and inspite of order of the learned Magistrate the same was not returned to him, he has not taken any steps for obtaining the original cheque eventhough he contended that he had filed contempt proceedings against the CCB Police, he has not produced any details of such legal proceedings initiated against the CCB police. Further though he stated in his evidence that he had taken up the matter with all higher police officials for return of his original cheque he has not supported this claim of his with any documents least any representation or legal notice addressed to the higher police officials. When it is the case of the complainant that the original cheques were seized in Cr.No.213 of 2017 by CCB Police, the complainant has not taken any steps to prove the same. However to bring to light the true facts the accused had summoned the Inspector of Police, CCB, Chennai Thiru.Rajesh Kanna and he had been examined as DW2. On perusal of the evidence of DW2 nothing in favour of the complainant has been elicited. In fact from the evidence of DW2 it only reveals that the disputed cheques are not available in the case diary and further DW2 has deposed that he is unable to state as to whether the documents seized were original documents or Photocopies since the same has not mentioned in the Seizure Mahazar. The Seizure Mahazar has been marked as Ex.X1. With respect to this document the complainant has stated that he only admits half of the document to be true and half of the document to be false. When he relied upon the Seizure Mahazar to substantiate his contention that the original cheque was seized by the CCB police, he cannot disown the Seizure Mahazar by contending that it is half true and half false. The complainant has not shown the fate of the original cheque till date but only contended that it was seized by the CCB Police, which is not supported and corroborated by any piece of evidence. Therefore the claim of the complainant that the original cheques were seized by the CCB Police, has not been proved by the complainant and it has not seen the light of the day. On the contrary the accused has claimed that the original cheque was destroyed (torn) by the complainant’s father in the presence of the accused and DW1 when they issued the settlement letter dated 18.07.2017. The said document is marked as Ex.D2 and it has been denied by the complainant. In order to prove that Ex.D2 was executed by the complainant’s father S.Mukanchand Bothra and the complainant and his brother the accused had taken steps to send
Ex.D2 for obtaining Handwriting Expert’s opinion and the opinion of the
Handwriting Expert has been marked as Ex.C1 through CW1 Tmt.R.Subha, Scientific Office, TNFSL., Chennai. It is strange that the complainant did not take any steps to send this document for comparison by an Handwriting Expert when he has categorically affirmed that it is a forged document. Nevertheless the accused had taken the pains in sending the settlement letter Ex.D2 for comparison by the
Handwriting Expert. CW1 in her evidence has stated that the disputed signature of Gagan Bothra could not be compared with that of his admitted signature for the reason that both the signatures were not similar in their pictorial appearance and only the like must be compared to like and that the disputed signature of Sandeep Bothra could not be compared with that of his admitted signature for the reason that there is a variation in the admitted signature as the period has been covered from 2017 to 2023 and also the disputed signatures are scribbled and that the disputed signature of Mukanchand Bothra could not be compared with that of his admitted signature for the reason that the disputed signature is scribbled and is in illegible manner. Therefore CW1 has stated that since the disputed signatures are in scribbling format, the expert is unable to compare the characteristics of the disputed signatures and to form an opinion as to whether the disputed signatures were affixed by the accused. Both the parties have not gone for a second opinion. But on the complete reading of the evidence of CW1 as well as Ex.C1 Report and the enlarged photographs Ex.C2, this court could infer that there is every possibility that Ex.D2 could have been executed by S.Mukandchand Bothra, M.Sandeep Bothra and M.Gagan Bothra since the complaint given by the accused against the complainant alleging that they have collected exorbitant interest and also refused to return the blank signed papers to the accused was registered on 17.07.2017 and therefore it is possible that on knowing the registration of FIR in Crime No.213 of 2017 the complainant and his father and brother had called the accused for settlement talks and as a result, Ex.D2 could have been executed by them in the hope that the complaint lodged by the accused would be withdrawn by the accused and on issuing the settlement letter the original cheques could have been destroyed by the complainant side seems to be probable. Now even if Ex.D2 is precluded from the consideration of this court still apart from Ex.D2 the accused has been successful in culling out answers in the evidence of PW1 to support his case and to create a suspicion and doubt in the complainant’s case.
7(xiv). The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon yet another piece of evidence the pen drive containing the video showing the accused signing blank papers and also blank cheques in support of his claim that the blank signed cheques and other papers given as security to the complainant has been misused by the complainant by filling exorbitant amount. The printout of the video footage has been marked as Ex.D1 along with the pen drive. The complainant vehemently opposed this document contending that it is not accompanied by the required certificate u/s.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act / u/s.63(4) of BSA, 2023. In this regard when the entire materials are perused, though the learned trial Judge has recorded in her adjudication dated 11.09.2023 that Sec. 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act Certificate was represented by defence side and received subject to objection and decision on admissibility will be decided along with the main case she has observed in the Judgment that the accused had himself given the documents and since there is no sound recorded in the video there is chance of editing and tampering of the said video and also held that the accused has not produced the Certificate which is mandated as per Sec.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore has held Ex.D1 to be inadmissible in evidence and contrary to it has held that the said Electronic Record is in favour of the complainant. On perusal of the entire records, this court is unable to find the Certificate u/s.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act that is recorded by the trial court to be represented by the defence side and received with objection from the complainant on the hearing dated 11.09.2023 and contrary to this adjudication, the trial court has held that Certificate u/s.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act was not produced by the accused.
7(xv). Now the question whether the improper/non filing of a Certificate under Sec.65B of the Indian Evidence Act would lead the court to reject the document/electronic record finds the answer in the Judgment reported in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others – (2020) 7 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 52 as under:
“ 52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V.2, this court did observe that such certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the person concerned, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence before him without the requisite certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC.”
7(xvi). As per the above dictum when the trial court finds that the electronic record produced by the party is without the requisite certificate u/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial court ought to have summoned the person required to furnish such certificate as per Sec.65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act but the same has not been followed by the trial court.
7(xvii). For this instance though this court could sent the entire records back to the trial court for verification and for ascertaining about the filing of Certificate u/s.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, this court is of the considered view that as this case has been pending from the year 2017 it could only prolong the proceedings which this court does not intend to do as even without this piece of evidence, this court could appreciate the other evidence let in by both sides to resolve the dispute between the parties. Therefore this court does not proceed to deliberate upon the authenticity and veracity of Ex.D1 and would keep it away from the purview of this court.
7(xviii). The accused has intended to rely upon Ex.D1 to establish the fact that the accused had given signed blank cheques signed blank stamp papers and other signed papers to the complainant for obtaining the loan which according to him has been filled by the complainant with exorbitant amount. To this limited purpose Ex.D1 was intended to be relied upon by the accused. From the fact that CCB police have seized many empty/blank cheques, blank signed pronotes, empty signed green papers in connection with other persons under the Seizure Mahazar Ex.X1 it is evident that the complainant used to obtain blank signed documents, blank cheques and blank signed stamp papers while lending loan. Though the complainant contended that he never obtained blank signed documents from his borrowers and when Ex.X1 stands against him, he has merely stated in his evidence that the police have so written in the Seizure Mahazar which is only to wriggle out of the situation found against him and this fact is yet another one found against the complainant’s case and it corroborates the defence version that the signed blank cheques and stamp papers have been filled up by the complainant to suit their needs and requirements and thus the contention of the accused that the said documents given by the accused towards security purpose has been misused by the complainant is probable.
Interestingly on perusal of Ex.P8 Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant’s brother Gagan Bothra it appears to be a Xerox copy but the trial court has recorded it as original and on a deep perusal of the said document, the said document is a color
Xerox and the stamp paper contains the original signature of the complainant and the Power of Attorney whereas the 2nd page of the said document contains only the Xerox of their signature and this itself is an ample proof that the documents can be filled up and manipulated by the complainant.
7(xix). Therefore inview of the above facts and reasoning this court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused has rebutted the presumption drawn against him u/s.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the accused is able to probabilize his defence the burden shifts to the complainant to prove that the cheques Ex.P1 were issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. While seeing whether the complainant has discharged this onus of proof, the complainant has not adduced any reliable and believable evidence to show what was the principal amount that was lent and what was the interest paid and what is the actual debt the accused is liable to repay on the date of presentation of the cheque Ex.P1. The evidence of the complainant does not support his case. The overwhelming evidence in support of the defence theory has not been countenanced by the complainant.
7(xx). In the present case, the accused having established by preponderance of probabilities that no legally enforceable debt or liability exists, the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the legally to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. When the accused has rebutted the presumption in the aforesaid manner coupled with the materials on record, the burden is primarily on the complainant to prove the debt amount which the complainant has miserably failed to prove. In view of the discussions made supra, there is no elucidation of material circumstances in which the Court could reach at a conclusion that there existed a legally enforceable debt. In such circumstances this court is of the view that the Judgment of the trial court requires interference and the accused is entitled for the benefit in his favour.
Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant/accused.
8. Point No.3
In the light of the discussion and reasoning made supra this court concludes that the judgment of the trial court requires interference by this court. Hence the judgment of the trial court passed in C.C.No.1105/2017, dated 26.06.2024 is hereby setaside. The accused 1 and 2 are acquitted. The accused 1 and 2 are entitled for refund of the amount deposited if any to the credit of the case.
Hence point No.3 is answered in favour of the appellant.
9. It is noticed that there is a cash transaction involving more than rupees twolakhs and totalling Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) in this case and hence the complainant has acted in violation of Sec.269 ST to Income Tax Act corresponding amendment to Sec.271 DA. The said transaction has to be reported to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for the violation of Sec.269 ST of the
Income Tax as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B.Gunashekar & another reported in 2025 INSC 490.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the finding of the trial court in convicting the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.1105/2017 dated 26.06.2024 u/s 138 NI Act is set aside. The accused 1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence u/s 138 NI Act. The deposits made by the accused towards the credit of the case shall be refunded to the appellants/accused after appeal time is over. Bail bond if any executed by accused in this case stands canceled after appeal time is over.
Directly dictated to the steno-typist and computerized by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of February, 2026.
XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Allikulam, Chennai.

Fair copy : Judgment
C.A.No.516/2024
Dt: 12.02.2026.
XXI Addl. Sessions Court, Chennai.