Court News from Madras High Court

Uncategorized

Efiling advt Girija venkatraman interview

by Sekar Reporter · December 15, 2025

[15/12, 13:21] Sekarreporter:

[15/12, 13:21] Sekarreporter:

Share this post:

X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Email

You may also like...

Next story Ms Ramesh judge Lakshminarayanan judge/ asg Arl sundaresan ed N Ranesh advt அமலாக்கத்துறை உதவி இயக்குனர் விகாஷ் குமார் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் நேரில் ஆஜராகி நிபந்தனையற்ற மன்னிப்பு
Previous story IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI Present: Tmt.R.Arulmozhiselvi, M.L., Dip. JJ.. XVI Additional District Judge Tuesday, the 09th day of December 2025 Criminal Appeal No.189/2025 (CNR.No.- TNCH01 – 002868 – 2025) Name of the Trial Court from which : Metropolitan Magistrate FTC – IV, the Appeal has been preferred George Town, Chennai – 01. Trial Court Case No. : STC.No.3407 of 2022 Appeal Case No. : C.A.No.189 of 2025 (CNR.No.TNCH01- 002868 -2025) Name and Address of the : Sanjay Jalan, Appellant/Accused S/o.R.K.Jalan, No.10, Flat No.102, Wheatcroft Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. Name and Address of the : Sathish, Respondent/complainant S/o. Babulal, No.210/212, C.B.Road, Vidhyasagar Oswal Garden, E-108, Korukkpet, Chennai – 02. Nature of Order passed by the Trial The Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, Judge : George Town, Chennai has convicted the accused as found guilty u/s. 138 of NI Act and the result of the trial court is extracted hereunder “ The accused is found guilty for the ogence u/s.138 of NI Act and the accused is convicted for the said ogence u/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. On considering reply of accused and fact and circumstance of the case, this court has considered that the age of the accused and amount involved in this case, this court has imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for 8 months to the accused and as per u/s.357 of Cr.P.C., this court has imposed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-(cheque amount) along with 3% per annum for the said cheque amount from the date of dishonor of case cheque to till date to the accused for the ogence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and directed the accused to pay the said compensation amount to the complainant within one month from this date and in default of payment of said compensation then the accused shall undego two months simple imprisonment. In the Appeal, Findings of the Court : In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022 dated 27.01.2025 is hereby confirmed. Filing of the appeal : 06.02.2025 Date of taken on file : 14.02.2025 Date of appearance : 03.03.2025 Date of Argument : 25.11.2025 Date of Judgment : 09.12.2025 This petition was taken on file on 14.02.2025 and coming on this day before me in the presence of M/s.V.Suresh Kumar counsel for the Appellant/Accused, and of M/s.A.Amala counsel for Respondent/Complainant and having stood over this day for consideration, this court delivered the following. JUDGMENT The appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022, dated 27.01.2025, has preferred the appeal before this appellate court 2) The concise case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant has stated in his complaint as on 28.03.2022, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cash and bank transaction and promised to repay the same within 2 months to the complainant. But the accused has not acted as per his words. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused has issued a cheque no.009670 dated 26.07.2022 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, R.K.Salai, Chennai – 600 004 to the complainant for the said liability. Then the complainant has presented the said cheque in his banker Punjab National Bank, Mint Street, Chennai – 79 and the same was returned as “ Funds Insuycient” and on 29.07.2022, return memo for the said cheque was given to complainant by his said banker. On 23.08.2022, the complainant has issued notice calling upon the accused to repay the said cheque amount to the complainant within 15 days as per U/s.138 of N.I.Act. On 24.08.2022, the said notice was received by the accused and reply notice date 20.09.2022. The accused has not repaid the said cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3) The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaintand, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued notice to both the accused. Upon the appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies as per Section 208 Cr.P.C., and after grant of suycient time, the accused was questioned upon the alleged ogence against him u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused denied committing the alleged ogence and opted to face trial. 4) Oral & documentary evidence and 313 Cr.P.C. examination before the Trial Court:- The complainant has examined PW.1 and has marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.7. The incriminating evidence against the accused was put forth to both the accused u/s. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C and they denied the allegations. On the defence side the accused was examined as DW1 and Ex.D.1 was marked. 5) Finding of the Trial Court:- After the full trial, the Trial Court has found the accused guilty u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and has sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 8 months to the accused and as per u/s.357 of Cr.P.C. the trial court has imposed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- (cheque amount) along with 3% per annum for the said cheque amount from the date of dishonor of case cheque to till date to the accused and directed the accused to pay the said compensation amount to the complainant within one month from the date of the judgment and in default of payment of said compensation the accused shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal before this court. 6) Parties’ Nomenclature in the appeal: For the sake of convenience, the Appellant is referred to as Accused and the respondent herein is referred to as Complainant, respectively, as per their litigative status at the Trial court. 7) Grounds of Appeal: • The appellant/accused argues that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are against the law and not supported by the evidence and circumstances of the case. • The appellant submits that the trial court has not followed the legal aspects laid on by the law and has jumped into the jacket of the complainant. • The trial court has not followed the theory of the benefit of the doubt and the theory of the onus of proof. • The trial court has failed to see that there was no legally enforceable debt and failed to see that PW1 has failed to state the date on which the amount was borrowed from him. • The appellant contends that he did not know the complainant and he had business transactions only with the Ravi. • The trial court failed to take note that the accused did not have direct contact with the accused and came to know of the name only through the manager. Hence the appellant seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence. 8) Point for consideration : Whether the Judgment of conviction passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022 dated 27.01.2025 is liable to be set aside or not? 9) Reasonings and findings of this appellate court: The appellant herein has filed this appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022 dated 27.01.2025. 10) It is the appellant’s case that the trial court Judgment was passedwithout proper appreciation of the facts and the legal position and that the trail court failed to take note that the accused was not aware of the complainant and that he had transaction only with one Ravi and that there was no legally enforceable debt, and the complaint has even failed to state the date of borrowing. The trial court has failed to appreciate the same, and hence the appellant seeks to set aside the conviction through this appeal. 11) This is countered by the complainant stating that the accused and thecomplainant are known to each other for several years and the accused had approached the complainant in the fourth week of March 2022 for his urgent domestic and business financial needs and on request from the accused, the complainant gave the amount of Rs.7 lakhs (Rs.5,00,000/- by way of bank transfer on 28.03.2022 and (Rs.2,00,000/- by way of bank transfer on 29.03.2022), the accused has failed to repay the said amount borrowed and towards which he has issued the suit cheque which when presented for collection has been returned as funds insuycient. Despite the statutory notice, the accused has failed to repay the amount, and the dishonour of the cheque has been confirmed under Section 138 of the NI Act. And hence seeks confirmation of sentence and compensation awarded by the trial court. 12) With these counter contentions, both parties are before this appellatecourt. Let us analyse the grounds of the accused, • whether The trial court has failed to see that there was no legally enforceable debt and failed to see that PW1 has failed to state the date on which the amount was borrowed from him. • Whether the trial court failed to take note that the accused had business transactions only with Ravi and not with the complainant, and that the trial court failed to take note that the accused did not have direct contact with the complainant and came to know of the name only through the manager. 13) Under Negotiable Instruments Act in cheque cases there are threestatutory presumptions available under sec 118 , Sec.138 and Sec 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. In this regard it is pertinent to note 2001(3) CTC 243 FB. Wherein it has been held that ” Because both section 138and 139 requires that the court shall presume the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn as noted in State of Madras Vs A. Vaidhyanatha Iyer 1958 CS 61 it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption had been established ” So first let us find out whether the complainant has established the factual ingredients for raising the mandatory statutory presumptions under Sec 118 and Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in his favour. 14) In this regard it is pertinent to see Sec.118 of Negotiable InstrumentsAct. Sec.118:- Presumption as, to Negotiable Instruments:-Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:- (a) Of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. (b) as to date : that every negotiable instrument bearing a date as made or drawn on such date,(c)as to time of acceptance : – that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer : – that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;” It is a settled proposition of law as laid down by our Supreme Court in the Division Bench Judgment in Bharat Barrel case(1991-CTC.497) presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act will apply once the execution of the cheque promissory note is accepted by the defendant. So let us see whether the execution of cheque has been established before this court by the complainant. 15) In this regard the complainant case is that the accused and the complainant are known to each other for several years and the accused had approached the complainant in the fourth week of March 2022 for his urgent domestic and business financial needs and on request from the accused, the complainant gave the amount of Rs.7 lakhs (Rs.5,00,000/- by way of bank transfer on 28.03.2022 and (Rs.2,00,000/- by way of bank transfer on 29.03.2022), and the accused has failed to repay the said amount borrowed and towards which he has issued the Ex.P1 cheque which when presented for collection has been returned as funds insuycient. Despite the statutory notice, the accused has failed to repay the amount. On due perusal of the evidence of PW1, this court finds that PW1 has categorically deposed that the cheque was issued by the accused. 16) In this case the accused himself have entered into the box who has categorically admitted the signature in Ex P1 “ #கா&தார)*+ ,-*./01யாக வழ*+ கா5-ா67க8 #.த.-ா.ஆ-6= ,கா>?@85!B எBD +EFGடFப0>8!@ எBறா= -/தாB.” “என@ கா5-ா676ய 6க,யாFபM0> NரFபFபடாம= 5மP,-ாBன 1.Q.ரR-STரB எBபவ/டU ,கா>?T)S5தB.” The accused has stated that he issued the cheque blank to D.G.Ravichandran. Hence from the evidence of the accused, it is clearly established that the signature in exhibit P1 is that of the accused, what is the implication of issuing the blank cheque by the accused will be dealt later for the sake of continuity. 17) The first defence put forth by the accused is that the transaction wasonly with the D.G.Ravichandran and not with the complainant and that the trial court has failed to appreciate the same. In this regard the accused who has put forth such a defence has not come forward to examine D.G.Ravichandran to probabilise his case. Further more, what is the implication of issuing a blank check has been laid down by the statute. At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract the statutory provision regarding issuance of the blank cheque which is guided under Section 20 of NI Act . Section 20 of NI Act imposes a serious liability upon a person who issues an incomplete instrument and by such signature in the blank cheque they intend to bind themselves as drawer. Further Section 20 of NI Act empowers the holder of the signed instrument to fill up blanks of negotiable instrument. Hence the defence of the Accused that he issued the blank cheques to D.G.Ravichandran does not come to his rescue inview of the strict statutory provision for blank instrument under Section 20 of NI Act. Hence this court rejects the said defence of the Accused. 18) Further, the accused side has also put forth another argument thatthe trial court failed to see that there was no legally enforceable debt on the date of borrowal. In this regard on perusal of the complaint this court finds that the complainant has stated that on 28.03.2022 the accused borrowed the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant and hence this court rejects the same. Further regarding the defence that there is no legally enforceable debt, this court finds in this regard, once the signature is submitted, then the statutory presumptions comes into play, which includes the existence of the legally enforceable debt. The accused who denies the same has the burden to probablise the defence that there was no legally enforceable debt. The accused who has put forth such a defence has not come forward with any concrete evidence to disprove the same. The only defence put forth by the accused is that he gave the blank cheque to one D.G.Ravichandran and not to the complainant. As already stated supra, the accused has not even examined the said D.G.Ravichandran to probablise is the said defence. Hence, this appellate court does not find any merits in the contention put forth by the accused and rejects it, upholding the finding of the learned Magistrate in this regard . 19) In view of the discussion and reasoning supra, this court concludesthat the complainant has established that Ex P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards the legally enforceable debt as admitted by the accused and rejects the defence put forth on the side of the accused that he issued the blank cheque to one DG Ravichandran and not to the complainant and that there was no legally enforceable debt. As already stated supra the evidence of PW1 read along with DW1 evidence has crystal clearly established the due execution of Ex.P 1 . Hence, the statutory presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has tilted in favour of the complainant, and the presumption under Sec 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption until the contrary is proved. And the Special rule of evidence in this regard has been laid down by our Hon’ble Supreme Court (Division Bench) in Kundah Lal Sara(AIR 1961 SC.1316 )as follows:- “ 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 is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non – existence of consideration by raising a probable defense. 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 plaintiq who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him 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 plaintiq is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiq as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non existence of the consideration, the plaintiq would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under section 118(a) in his favour”. 20) In the light of the above special rule of evidence regarding therebuttable presumption let us find out whether the accused has rebutted the statutory presumption swung in favour of the complainant under Sec.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act through any probable evidence. The accused has put forth the defence that the accused did not issue the cheques Ex P5 & 6, and the Ex P4 memorandum of understanding was obtained through coercion. As already discussed supra by this court, the defences raised by the accused have been negatived by this court on the ground that the said defences are not established through convincing evidence. Hence, in the absence of probable evidence on the side of the accused to probablise his defence, this court is not convinced with the defence put forth on the side of the accused, and this court concludes that the accused has miserably failed to probablise his defence. 21) In view of the discussions and reasonings supra, this court holds thatthe defence put forth on the side of the accused is not strong enough to rebut the statutory presumption which has swung in favour of the complainant. The total absence of convincing evidence on the side of the accused has failed to probablise the defense put forth on the side of the accused. As the execution of Ex.P.1 is established, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has swung in favour of the complainant .Further the doctrine of reverse burden introduced under Sec139 NI act which is a delicate balance also has swung in favour of the complainant. This presumption must be rebutted by probable evidence .But as discussed supra the accused has miserably failed to establish nor probablise his defence that it was issued to DG Ravichandran blank and that it is misused by the complainant and the false case has been filed . In view of the discussions and reasonings supra this court conclude that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption swung in favour of the complainant under Sec.139 NI Act . 22) Next, let us determine whether the complainant has established allthe necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to hold the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trail court has rightly held that all ingredients under 138 NI act has been made out. In this regard this court also finds that the complainant has established through his evidence that Ex.P.1 cheque was issued by the accused towards the discharge of debt and the cheque. Ex.P.2 was presented for collection and the same was dishonoured as insuycient funds which is evidenced by the return memo and the statutory notice Ex.P.3 was sent and Ex.P4 acknowledgment card filed and there is no proof of payment of the due amount by the accused and the complaint is filed with in time before this court. Hence, this court concludes that the complainant has established all the ingredients to constitute the ogence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused, and the accused has miserably failed to rebut the legal presumption built in Sections 118 & 139 of the N.I. Act through convincing probable evidence. Hence, this appellate court does not find any merit in the arguments of the accused that the trial court has failed to see that the ogence under 138 NI Act is not made out, and the trial court has rightly concluded to hold the accused guilty of the ogence u/s 138 of the NI Act. Hence, this appellate court does not find any valid grounds to interfere with the reasoned judgment given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and holds that the appeal deserves dismissal and also confirms the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022 dated 27.01.2025. 23) Result: In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the FTC IV, George Town, Chennai in STC.No.3407 of 2022 dated 27.01.2025 is hereby confirmed. Dictated directly in my laptop, formatting done by the steno and corrections were carried out by me, and the order was pronounced by me in the open court, on the 09th day of December 2025. Digitally signed R ARULMOZHIby R ARULMOZHI SELVI SELVI Date: 2025.12.09 17:42:15 +0530 XVI Addl. Sessions Judge City Civil Court, Chennai-1. Copy to: The Metropolitan Magistrate FTC IV, George Town, Chennai-01. Draft/Fair Judgment C.A No.189/2025 Dt.: 09.12.2025 XVI Addl Court, Chennai.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Exit mobile version