In the result, in view of the reasons stated above, this court found Accused is guilty of dishonour of cheques for the offence u/s of 138 N I Act r/w Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Two Years simple imprisonment and to pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. being the cheques amount to the Complainant within two months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of the compensation, the accused shall

IN THE COURT OF DESIGNATED SPECIAL COURT FOR
MPs/MLAs viz., III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT / III
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI-1
Present: Thiru. C. Sundarapandian, B.Com., B.L.,
III Metropolitan Magistrate/ III Judicial Magistrate
Tuesday, 30th day of December 2025
CALENDER CASE No. 377 OF 2025
(CNR. NO TNCHOB-005761-2025) Case Summary
Sl.
No. Description Details
1 The period of remand of the accused: Nil
2 The date of filing of the complaint/final report in the Court; 15.07.20219/Nil
3 The date of committal of the case to the Court of Session; Nil
4 The date of questioning of the accused under Sections 228, 240,
246 and 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the case may be; 17.07.2025
5 Filing of all miscellaneous petitions and their results including The results on challenge before superior Courts; except routine Petitions like petitions under Section 317 of the Code; 1. Surrender Petition filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 is allowed on 12.03.2025.
2. Petition under Section 70(2) Cr.PC. filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2025 is allowed on 12.03.2025.
3. Substitution petition filed by Complainant in Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2025 is allowed on 11.07.2025.
4. Petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., filed by Complainant in Crl.M.P.No.4818 of 2025 is allowed on 19.08.2025.
5. Advance Petition filed by Accused in

Crl.M.P.No.5805 of 2025 is allowed on 29.08.2025.
6. Petition under Section 348 of BNSS filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.6863 of 2025 is allowed on 14.10.2025.
7. Petition under Section 309 of Cr.PC. filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.7336 of 2025 is allowed on 03.11.2025.
8. Petition under Section 348 of BNSS filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.7900 of 2025 is allowed on 05.12.2025.
9. Petition under Section 346 of BNSS, filed by Accused in Crl.M.P.No.8166 of 2025 is allowed on 24.12.2025.
6 Date of examination in-chief and cross-examination of witness; Witness Chief Cross
P.W.1 15.07.2019 –
P.W.2 25.08.2025 P.W.2 – 10.11.2025
D.W.1 11.12.2025 11.12.2025
7 Date of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code; 09.09.2025
8 Details of abscondence of an accused and his Appearance / production, as the case may be; The Accused was absent and absconded on 12.10.2021.
Petition under Section 70(2) Cr.PC. filed by 3rd Accused in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2025 is allowed on 12.03.2025.
9 Grant of stay by superior Courts and the results thereof Nil
10 Details of Victim Compensation Ordered The Accused is guilty of dishonour of cheques for the offence u/s of 138 N I Act r/w Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo Two Years simple imprisonment and to pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. being the cheques amount to the Complainant within two months from the date of this Judgment.

Sl.
No. Description Details
1 Name of Complainant M/s.New Link Overseas Finance Limited,
by its Director, U.P.Prakasham
Duly Rep by its Authorized Signatory / General
Manager
*{S.Sivaramakrishnan}
*Substituted by
P.Viswanathan S/o. P.Perumal,
Mamatha Complex,
Second Floor, No.25, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
*(Substitute Petition filed by Complainant in Crl.M.P.No.3693 of 2025 allowed on 11.07.2025 since erstwhile representative of Company
S.Sivaramakrishnan resigned from the Company)
2 Name of the Accused: Dr. T.Sadhan Thirumalai Kumar,
S/o. Late S.Thirumalaiyandi,
No.31 and 32, Chidambaram South Street, Puliyangudi – 627 855.
3 Charges against the accused : The complainant is non-banking financial institution and Accused is Doctor by Profession. The Complainant provided Term Loans to Accused on such dates as per his requirements and the details of which are as set out Loan Numbers TLK15K16066 Loan dated 28.06.2016 for Rs.51,09,212/- and TLK15K16068 dated 28.03.2016 for Rs.80,59,107/-. Towards the said Term Loan the Accused has paid the interest at irregular intervals and that all such part payments have been given due credit by the Complainant company. After certain period of time, the Accused has committed defaults in payments of both interest as well as the principle. Only after repeated and persistent demands, the Accused towards partial discharge of his legally enforceable liability has issued Cheque bearing Number 761846 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs. 50,00,000/- and Cheque

bearing Number 761847 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IOB, Puliyangudi Branch. The Accused has issued the above said cheques and promised to the Complainant that the same would be honoured on presentation. The Complainant with great belief had presented the Cheques bearing Nos.761846 and 7611847 both dated 21.05.2019 each for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IOB, Puliyangudi Branch, with their Banker Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai Branch on 22.05.2019, to the shock and surprise of the Complainant the said cheques were returned Dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Immediately after getting the Memorandum on 24.05.2019 from their banker viz.. Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai Branch, the Complainant notified about dishonour of cheques to the Accused and for which he has not properly responded from this it is crystal clear that the Accused has not acted in good faith while issuing the aforesaid cheques. Further, the Accused has neither regretted for the issuance of the subject cheques that got dishonoured nor bothered to settle the sum due towards the dishonoured Cheques. From such deliberate and unjustified attitude of the Accused, it is crystal clear that he has knowingly issued the cheques in reference solely with an intention to cause undue hardship to the Complainant. Such a negligent and recalcitrant attitude of all the Accuse is clearly an ill motivated one to defraud the Complainant without any justification. In terms of such unjustified attitude of the Accused, the Complainant was constrained to issue the Statutory Notice dated 31.05.2019 to the Accused. The said Statutory Notice has been duly received by the Accused on 03.06.2019. Even after receipt of the Statutory Notice the Accused has neither comply with the demand made therein nor sent any reply therefor. Hence, the complaint.
4 Plea of accused. Not Guilty.
5 Finding of the Judge : Accused is found Guilty.
6 Sentence or order : In the result, in view of the reasons stated
above, this court found Accused is guilty of dishonour of cheques for the offence u/s of 138 N I Act r/w Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Two Years simple imprisonment and to pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. being the cheques amount to the Complainant within two months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of the compensation, the accused shall undergo a further period of Three months Simple Imprisonment, a default sentence considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
7 Pleader for the Accused M/s.Vijayakrishnan R.P, Learned Advocate.
8 Prosecution conducted by : M/s.N.Premkumar, R.Prasanna Vineeth Durai and M.Chinnathambi, Learned Advocates.
This case having been taken on file on 15.07.2019 on the file of Fast Track Court – II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai in CC.No.5826 of 2019 which was withdrawn from the court and transferred to Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal cases related to elected M.P.s and MLAs of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai -1 as per the order in R.O.C.No.72/2025/DRO in taken up CC.No. 2/2025 and which was withdrawn from the Court and transferred to III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town Court as per the order in Dis.No.6396 of 2025 dated 13.05.2025 by the Hon’ble Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The case records in CC.No.2 of 2025 is received from the Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal cases related to elected M.Ps and MLAs of Tamil Nadu vide. Dis.No.159 of 2025 Dated 16.05.2025, as per the Honble High Court ROC.No.5745218G4 dated 08.05.2025 to Transfer the case on the point of Jurisdiction and vide Proceedings of Hon’ble Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Dis.No.6396 Stats 2025 dated 13.05.2024 with direction that both parties are directed to appear before this Court on 26.05.2025 at 10.00 AM and the case is taken on file as C.C.No.377 of 2025. After III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town Court taken up in CC.No.377 of 2025. Hence, the present case is transferred to the III MM with direction of both the parties shall appear before this court on 28.06.2024. Pending Trial, the case was taken up and came up for final hearing before me on 26.12.2025 in the presence of M/s.N.Premkumar, R.Prasanna Vineeth Durai and M.Chinnathambi, Learned Advocates, on behalf of the Complainant and M/s.Vijayakrishnan R.P, Learned Advocate, on behalf of the Accused upon perusing records, upon hearing arguments of both side and having been stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (Herein after N I Act) against Accused for offence of Dishonour of Cheques viz. Cheque bearing Number 761846 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) and Cheque bearing Number 761847 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only),
(Total Cheques amount Rs.1,00,00,000/-) (Rupees One Crore Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi Branch, issued by Accused in favour of the complainant.
2. As per the dictum laid down in Indian Bank Association case
2014 (2) SCC (Crl) 352 in para 18 and as directed in the latest dictum in
M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited case reported in CDJ 2017 SC 1113, The Complainant had let in his pre cognizance evidence in the form of proof affidavit and had marked the documents. The Proof affidavit was received and the Exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked initially. On perusal of entire case records and the Exhibits, prima facie case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out against the accused as the ingredients under Section 138 (a), (b), (c) was satisfied on record. Hence, this court takes cognizance of the offence against accused for the offence stated supra to be tried as per Summary Trial procedure as mandated under Section 143 of N I Act. The sworn statement of complainant was recorded by this court and after perusing the records, this court has taken cognizance of the case. On appearance of accused free copies of the records in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to her. After perusal of the records, as there was a prima facie case against the Accused, the substance of the allegation of the offence u/s 138 N I Act was read over, explained and questioned in Thamizh and the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
3. The Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies
Act Represented by Its Director, U.P. Prakasam duly represented by the Authorized Signatory, General Manager S.Sivaramakrishnan S/o. Sankaralingam was examined on 15.07.2019 as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. Thereafter, Substitution Petition was filed on behalf of Complainant to represent Complainant by P.Viswanathan S/o.P.Perumal instead of S.Sivaramakrishnan S/o. Sankaralingam since, the former left the Job vide Crl.M.P. No. 3693 of 2025 allowed on 11.07.2025. PW.2 P.Viswanathan examined-in-Chief-in-full and Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.14 were marked. On the side of defence, Shankar S/o. Mani has examined as D.W.1 and he has not marked any exhibits.
4. The Brief of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is non-banking financial institution and carrying on business in advancing term and Hypothecation loans for various purposes including that of business activities. In the course of his professional related development activities the accused had availed two terms loans from complainant during the month of March 2016 vide No.TLK15K16066 and TLK15K16068. In pursuance of the same, the Complainant have granted two Term Loans after confirming the soundness and financial capacity of Accused, being a medical practitioner. The Complainant provided such Terms Loans on such dates as per his requirements and the details of which are as set out Loan Numbers TLK15K16066 Loan dated 28.06.2016 for Rs.51,09,212/- and TLK15K16068 dated 28.03.2016 for Rs.80,59,107/-. Towards the said Term Loan the Accused has paid the interest at irregular intervals and that all such part payments have been given due credit by the Complainant company. After certain period of time, the Accused has committed defaults in payments of both interest as well as the principle. Only after repeated and persistent demands, the Accused towards partial discharge of his legally enforceable liability has issued Cheque bearing Number 761846 dated
21.05.2019 for Rs. 50,00,000/- and Cheque bearing Number 761847 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IOB, Puliyangudi Branch. The Accused has issued the above said cheques and promised to the Complainant that the same would be honoured on presentation. The Complainant with great belief had presented the Cheques bearing Nos.761846 and 7611847 both dated 21.05.2019 each for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- drawn on IOB, Puliyangudi Branch, with their Banker Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai Branch on 22.05.2019, to the shock and surprise of the Complainant the said cheques were returned Dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Immediately after getting the Memorandum on 24.05.2019 from their banker viz.. Indian Bank, Ethiraj Salai Branch, the Complainant notified about dishonour of cheques to the Accused and for which he has not properly responded from this it is crystal clear that the Accused has not acted in good faith while issuing the aforesaid cheques. Further, the Accused has neither regretted for the issuance of the subject cheques that got dishonoured nor bothered to settle the sum due towards the dishonoured Cheques. From such deliberate and unjustified attitude of the Accused, it is crystal clear that he has knowingly issued the cheques in reference solely with an intention to cause undue hardship to the Complainant. Such a negligent and recalcitrant attitude of all the Accuse is clearly an ill motivated one to defraud the Complainant without any justification. In terms of such unjustified attitude of the Accused, the Complainant was constrained to issue the Statutory Notice dated 31.05.2019 to the Accused. The said Statutory Notice has been duly received by the Accused on 03.06.2019. Even after receipt of the Statutory Notice the Accused has neither comply with the demand made therein nor sent any reply therefor. Thus, the accused have committed an offence
Under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Hence, the Complaint with prayer to punish the Accused and to pass direction to pay twice the amount of cheque as Compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the complaint.

5. The evidence of complainant was closed on 25.08.2025. The accused was questioned on 09.09.2025 under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, as to, the incriminating circumstances available in evidence against the accused in Thamizh and the accused replied that the evidence given against them are false and they have witnesses to be examined on their side.
6. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the complainant has proved the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and if so what are the offences committed by the accused?
7. Gist of defence of t he Accused is as follows:
(I). The way in which Authorised person filed Complaint is Bad in Law. Under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Only Payee / Holder in due course / Natural Person / Power of Attorney can set criminal law in motion. In this case Authorised representative of Complainant has filed case which is not permissible under law. Hence, the Complaint is not maintainable. Further, PW.2 Viswanathan S/o. Perumal, (Senior Associate, Loan Operations) Authorised signatory, during cross-examination has deposed that and has not answered for questions with respect to any rules by
Complainant company authorizing Authorised Representative to file Complaint, hence, Authorised Person cannot file complaint and depose evidence. Further, Board Resolution has not marked.
(II). Time Barred Debt: Debt itself time barred. Loan date is
28.03.2016. But, cheques obtained on 25.05.2019. Though, Complaint stated in para 4, Accused has paid part amount, to show continuation of loan, is not stated in Proof Affidavit. It has to be supported by supported by pleading since, the nature of case is Quasi-Criminal Proceedings. Under Section 25 of Contract Act, for revival of Contract, there must be Agreement.
(III). Originally Complaint was filed by Sivaramakrisnan General Manager of the Complainant finance Company as authorized Signatory. He relies upon or one resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Complainant Company as its meeting held on 28.06.2019 at its office. But, in resolution consciously absent about what by law or Articles of
Association, Memorandum of Association authorizing the Board of
Directors to appoint authorized signatory to file Criminal case against Accused on behalf of the company and depose before the court of law about this case. The complaint is filed not by competent person, Complaint cannot be entertained under section 200 of Cr.P.C., and Complaint itself is not sustainable in the eye of law it goes to the very foundation of the case. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable. False case. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. This court has carefully perused the records and the materialsavailable in the case Records. For properly appreciating the facts of the case and the legal aspects to be determined, a reference is necessary to the relevant statutory provisions. The following are the essential ingredients for constituting the offence u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act: i) Person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained in the bank for payment of certain amount of money to another person from out of that account, ii) The cheque should have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Iv) That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; vi) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. It is only when all the above mentioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the N I Act.
9. Further, the N I Act raises two presumptions. They are as follows. The Act raises two presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. the Complainant in the present case; firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 (a) and, secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in
Section 138, for discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
For the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 have to be compulsorily raised as soon as execution of cheque by accused is admitted or proved by the complainant and thereafter burden is shifted to accused to prove otherwise. These presumptions shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability etc. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. The presumptions under section 118 and 138 are rebuttable in nature.
10. A careful perusal of records would reveals that in order tosubstantiate the case of prosecution he has marked Ex.P.1 To Ex.P.14. The Board Resolution of Complainant Company Newlink Overseas Finance
Limited related to Hypothecation Loan Account No.TLK 15 K 16066 dated
28.06.2019 is Ex.P.1. The Board Resolution of Complainant Company
Newlink Overseas Finance Limited related to Hypothecation Loan Account
No.TLK 15 K 16068 dated 28.06.2019 is Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 is Cheque bearing
Number 761846 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi Branch. The complainant had presented the Cheque bearing Number 61846 dated 21.05.2019 for
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi Branch to their Banker Indian Bank, Entiraj Salai Branch, but the same was returned on 24.05.2019 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The Bank Return Memo dated 24.05.2019 is Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 is Cheque bearing Number 761847 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi Branch. The complainant had presented the Cheque bearing Number 761847 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) of Indian Bank, Entiraj Salai Branch, but the same was returned on 24.05.2019 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The Bank Return Memo dated 24.05.2019 is Ex.P.6. Hence, the complainant has issued Statuary Legal Notice dated 31.05.2019 for Cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- through RPAD and the same wasd received the all the Accused on 03.06.2019. The Statuary
Legal Notice and Acknowledgments is Ex.P.7. The complainant issued Statuary Legal Notice dated 31.05.2025 for Cheque of Rs.50,00,000/through RPAD and the same were received the all the Accused addresses on
03.06.2019. The Statuary Legal Notice and Acknowledgments is Ex.P.8. The Statement of account vide., No.TLK 15 K 16066 is Ex.P.9. The Statement of account vide., No.TLK 15 K 16066 is Ex.P.10. Order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench
(Court-I) Chennai in CP (CA)/85/(CHE)/2024 is Ex.P.11. Modification
Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law
Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) in IA (CA)/86/(CHE)/2025 is Ex.P.12.
Letter of Authorization dated 02.06.2005 issued by the Administrator is
Ex.P.13. Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Company
Law Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) in IA (CA)/122/(CHE)/2025 is Ex.P.14. The Accused have not made payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, it has relied Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14.
11. The complainant has examined himself as PW1. When the cheques Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 are presented for collection, the same were returned by return memos vide Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6 for the reasons “Funds Insufficient”. The Complainant has issued Two Legal Notice to all Accused demanding the cheques Amount which are Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 and the same were received by all the accused addresses with Acknowledgements. Even then, the accused has not made payment for cheques. According to the complainant, the Accused has not paid cheques Amount. A careful perusal of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 would reveals that the complainant has substantiated its case and proved essential ingredients to contemplate offence u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association Case reported in 2014(5) SCC 590, in Para 18 and the relevant portion as as follows: We make it clear that if provisas (a ) (b ) and ( c ) to Section 138 of the Act are shown to have been complied with, technically the commission of the offence stands completed and it is for the accused to show that no offence could have been committed by him for specific reasons and defence.
12. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the initial presumptions,after proving the essential ingredients u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. At this Juncture, it is relevant to incorporate a citation reported in a case between K.N. Beena, Vs Muniyappan and another, in 2002 SCC.Crl.14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Under Section 118 unless the contrary was proved, it is to be presumed that the Negotiable Instrument
(including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. Under Section 139, the court has to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in past, of a debt or liability. Thus, in a complaint under section 138 the court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused
13. At this Juncture, it is essential to mention that, the accused hasneither sent Reply Notice nor paid the cheques amount. The contention of accused are that “entire loan amount are repaid and finally Rs.35,00,000/paid to the Complainant as one time Settlement.”. In this regard, The accused has examined Shankar S/o. Mani, Assistant for Accused in his
Hospital, has deposed that he worked as Assistant at Dr.Sadhan Thirumalai
Kumar’s Hospital. He has worked with him from 1991. He worked as
Manager in Hospital. This case is filed as if the accused borrowed loan from
New Link Finance. The above loan was obtained Accused during the year 2010. It was Rs.30 Lakhs and Rs.25 Lakhs. He was working with accused from 2010 during borrowel of loan and they have been repaying. Loan repaid monthly and whenever money earned. He forgets, how much amount loan repaid monthly and whenever money earned, but Rs.35,00,000/- paid to New Link Finance Company by accused Dr. Sadhan Thirumalai Kumar as one time settlement. Likewise, accused repaid entire loan amount borrowed from Complainant.
The relevant portion of chief-examination DW.1 Shankar S/o. Mani dated 11.12.2025 is as follows.
Chief-examination of DW.1 Shankar S/o. Mani dated 11.12.2025 முதல் விசாரணை :
நான் மே ற்கண்ட முகவரியில் வசித்து வருகிமே ன்.
நான் Dr.SadhanThirumalaiKumar அவர்களின் ருத்துவ ணை.யில் மேவணை/ பார்த்மேதன். அவ்வாறு 1991 ஆம் ஆண்டிலிருந்து Dr.SadhanThirumalaiKumar டம் மேவணை/ பார்த்துவந்மேதன்.
ருத்துவ ணை.யில் நான் மே /ாளராக பணியாற்றிமே.ன். இந்த வழக்கு New Link Financeல் மே/ான் வாங்கியதாக எதிரிமீது வழக்கு மேபாட்டுள்ளார்கள். மே ற்படி கடன் 2010ல்
Dr.SadhanThirumalaiKumar வாங்கி.ார்கள். ஒரு முப்பது /ட்சம் ற்றும் ஒரு இருபத்ணைதந்து /ட்சம்ஆக ம ாத்தம் ஐம்பத்ணைதந்து /ட்சம் கடன் வாங்கி.ார். 2010 ம் ஆண்டில் கடன் வாங்கிய கா/த்தில் நான் பணியிலிருந்மேதன், மே ற்படி கடன் மதாணைகணைய மசலுத்திக்மகாண்டுதான் இருந்மேதாம். ாதா ாதம் ற்றும் இணைடயில் எப்மபாழுமதல்/ாம் ப ம் வருகி மேதா அப்மேபாது கடணை. திருப்பி மசலுத்திமே.ாம். அவ்வாறு ாதா ாதம் ற்றும் இணைடயிணைடமேய எவ்வளவு ப ம் மசலுத்திமே.ாம் என்று எ.க்கு தற்மேபாது ஞாபகம் இல்ணை/, கணைடசியாக One Time Settlement ஆக ரூ.35,00,000/-ஐ New Link Finance Company க்கு எதிரி Dr.SadhanThirumalaiKumar மசலுத்தி.ார், அவ்வாறு புகார்தாரரிடம் வாங்கி கடன் மதாணைகணைய முழுவது ாக மசலுத்தி கடணை. மசலுத்தி முடித்துவிட்டார்.
Thus, it is evident that it is the Accused has borrowed loan from Complainant. To repay the same, Accused has issued cheques. There is no doubt, that the signature in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 are that of accused. It is admitted by Accused that he has issued subject cheques which were given for security while availing complaint mentioned loan. There is no material for discharge of above said loan. Hence, Accused is held liable as signatory of Cheque as on the date of availing loan. Therefore, the burden is heavily on accused to rebut the presumption. Burden though is not as heavy and onerous as initial paramount burden on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden could be discharged by preponderance of probabilities. The Accused has questioned that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt for legally enforceable debt.
14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the signatures found inthe Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 of cheques are that of Accused. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the statutory presumptions as laid down in the
Rangappa’s case as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 that, “Once cheque relates to the account of the Accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to raised by the court in favour of the complainant”. Therefore, the onus is on the Accused to raise a probable defence that the cheque in dispute is not supported with existing legally enforceable debt or liability when the accused refuted the contention of complainant defending by defence theory.
15. Presumptions are rules of evidence. The obligation on theprosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless or until the accused showed reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of the presumed fact. Presumptions under section 118 and under section 139 of N I Act are rebuttable presumptions. Section 118 (a) provides a presumption that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 provides that unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. A conjoint reading of these sections i.e., Sec 118 (a) and Sec 139 will show that whenever the drawn of the cheque is either admitted or proved, the presumption under section 118 (a) will come to picture to say that the cheque is supported by consideration. The presumption under section 139 is explanatory and supplementary to the presumption under section 118 (a) to show that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of the debt or other liability. The nature of the presumption under section 138 is subject to the three conditions specified relating to presentation of cheque, giving of the notice and the non-payment after receipt of the notice. The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not issued towards the discharge of any liability. Presumptions may be looked as bats of law, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sun shine of facts. When such evidence is introduced the presumption is functus officio and drops out of sight.
16. Therefore, now the issue is to be decided is on whom burden ofproof lies when the execution is admitted. In view of the presumptions under sections 118(a) and section 139, once accused admitted his signature on cheques, burden lies on him to prove that cheque was issued not for discharge of debt or liability legally enforceable in as much as every negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be supported by consideration under sec 118 (a) unless the contrary is proved and secondly a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in sec. 139 to discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. So the burden lies on the promissory to rebut the said presumption.
17. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate a citation Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, Hon’ble Apex Court examined as to when complainant discharges the burden to prove that instrument was executed and when the burden shall be shifted. In paragraph
Nos. 18 to 20, following has been laid down:-
“………..To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not
exist……………”
18. In this aspect a Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court inRangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied by Learned counsel for accused had occasion to elaborately consider provisions of Sections 138 and 139 and laid down the following. In the above case, trial court had acquitted the accused in a case relating to Dishonour of cheque under Section 138. The High Court had reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused. In the above case, the accused had admitted signatures on the cheque.
Hon’ble Apex court held that where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. In Paragraph No.13, following has been laid down:-
“13. The High Court in its order noted that in the course of the trial proceedings, the accused had admitted that the signature on the impugned cheque (No. 0886322 dated 8-2-2001) was indeed his own. Once this fact has been acknowledged, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. With regard to the present facts, the High Court found that the defence raised by the accused was not probable.”
Thus, the presumption is of a rebuttable nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence.
19. It is to be seen that whether the accused has rebutted the presumption. Admittedly, the accused has examined DW.1 Shankar S/o.
Mani and he has deposed that entire loan amount are repaid and finally Rs.35,00,000/- to Complainant as one time Settlement. Thus, it is evident that the accused has admitted receipt of loan and issuance of cheques and signature found in it.
20. A careful perusal of Ex.P.4 Return memo dated 12.06.2019 wouldreveals that the cheque No. 510290 and Ex.P.6 Return Memo dated
12.06.2019 vide Cheque No. 470198 have been returned for the reason that “Funds Insufficient”. Therefore, in the instant case since the cheques as well as the signature have been admitted by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 of N I Act would operate. Thus, the burden is on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. To this effect, the accused has come up with a defence theory that,
“entire loan amount are repaid and finally Rs.35,00,000/- paid to the Complainant as one time Settlement ”.
21. To answer for the defence by accused, a careful perusal of records would reveals that first of all, the Accused had availed Hypothecation Loans from Complainant during the year 2016. The accused has admitted that he has issued subject cheques for security purpose while availing above said loans and signature on the cheques. There is no material for discharge of above said loan. Hence, Accused is held liable as on the date of availing loan. Hence, the contentions of learned counsel for Accused cannot be countenanced.
22. Hence, the Defence Evidence are irrelevant to the facts of the case and no way helpful to accused. Apart from evidence of DW.1 and crossexamination of PW.1, in the absence of any material evidence to support defence theory, the accused has neither produced any material evidence nor examined any witness to prove the same. Further, inspite of receipt of legal notice the Accused has not issued any Reply Notice to refute the same and the defence is taken only during cross examination. Thus, it is evident that the entire defence theory is after thought and created for the purpose of case. At this juncture, it is essential to mention that when the cheques were presented for collection the same were returned vide Return Memo Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6 for the reason “Funds Insufficient “. The Legal Notices are Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. Therefore, the accused had prior knowledge of dishnonour of cheques. This implies that the accused had knowledge of the cheques being presented to the bank during dishonour of cheques, Thus, the story brought out by the accused is unworthy of credit, apart from unsupported by any evidence.
23. As already stated, the Accused had received Legal Notice Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 from Complainant. The accused having received loan and issued cheques, liability arise and they have obligation for discharge of the liability. The Accused cannot simply neglect that he has no idea of such transaction when he has issued Cheques. Further, as for as discharge of debt and liability
under Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned CHAPTER VII OF DISCHARGE FROM LIABILITY ON NOTES, BILLS AND CHEQUES
dealt with. Section 82. Discharge from liability reads as follows. The maker, acceptor or indorser respectively of a negotiable instrument is discharged from liability thereon— (a) by cancellation.—to a holder thereof who cancels such acceptor’s or indorser’s name with intent to discharge him, and to all parties claiming under such holder; (b) by release.—to a holder thereof who otherwise discharges such maker, acceptor or indorser, and to all parties deriving title under such holder after notice of such discharge; (c) by payment.—to all parties thereto, if the instrument is payable to bearer, or has been indorsed in blank, and such maker, acceptor or indorser makes payment in due course of the amount due thereon.
24. Except above said type of mode, no other mode has been
prescribed for Discharge of liability. The Accused has not substantiated the discharge of liability by mode of Payment. Mere asking questions during cross-examination of PW.1 that to denied by complainant is not sufficient to disprove the liability. Further, The Accused come forward with his defence theory stated only during cross-examination but failed to prove the payment made for cheques amount, hence the entire defence theory is construed as after thought. For argument sake, if the defence theory is taken as true, then in a given situation, what an ordinary prudent man will do is, either he will examine person who knew defence theory as witness to clarify the same or to produce Receipts from Complainant for Repayment of loan amount. To substantiate the Defence Points introduced by Accused when evidence of DW.1 and Exhibits marked by DW.1 are irrelevant and futile, he ought to have been examined witnesses on his side but he has failed to do so. Further, non examination of witness by accused to support his case will give rise to an adverse inference against accused that he has not examined, on the fear that the same would demolish his own case. Hence, the contention of accused cannot be countenanced.
25. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate a citation Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, Hon’ble Apex Court examined as to when complainant discharges the burden to prove that instrument was executed and when the burden shall be shifted. In paragraph
Nos. 18 to 20, following has been laid down:-
“………..To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist……………”
26. Therefore, it is evident that the defence theory propounded by accused is not proved since, firstly, the accused de-tour from the defence theory taken that on the one hand he has stated cheques have been given for receiving loan in the name of Accused Company and on the other hand, he has repaid entire loan and full and final settlement arrived by paying Rs.35 Lakhs and no liability. But has not filed any material documents for repayment of entire loan. Secondly, on the side of complainant, PW1 and PW.2, very clearly and categorically answered each and every suggestive questions put by accused as mentioned supra. The accused propounded his defence theory at first instance only during cross-examination of PW.2 stage, but missed to state the defence theory during first questioning and Section 313 Cr.P.C Questioning. Inspite of receipt of Legal Notice, the accused has not issued Reply Notice for the defence taken at the very inception. Therefore, the defence theory is none other than after thought. In the light of above discussions, it is evident that the Accused has not discharged the onus placed upon him that the cheques are not supported by consideration. In such view of the matter, the defence points put forth by the Learned accused counsel that they had discharged their onus and the complainant having failed to establish their case that the subject cheques are not supported by consideration cannot be countenanced. It is only found that the accused have not discharged the onus placed upon them funder Section 118 and 139 of the N I Act. Therefore, the burden does not shift to the complainant. In any event, as seen above, the complainant have established their case beyond the reasonable doubt through evidence of PW1 that the accused had borrowed the cheque debt from the complainant and in evidence thereof, executed the subject cheques. On the other hand, the accused has miserably failed to establish his defence version in any angle and even the projected evidence as discussed above is found to be unreliable and unacceptable.
27. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh on 9 October, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………. OF 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12802
of 2022) held in para 29 and 30 which are as follows.
29. There are two senses in which the phrase ‘burden of proof ’ is used inthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act, hereinafter). One is the burden of proof arising as a matter of pleading and the other is the one which deals with the question as to who has first to prove a particular fact. The former is called the ‘legal burden’ and it never shifts, the latter is called the ‘evidential burden’ and it shifts from one side to the other. [See Kundanlal v. Custodian Evacuee Property (AIR 1961 SC 1316)]
30. The legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constantthroughout a trial. It is the burden of establishing the facts and contentions which will support a party’s case. If, at the conclusion of the trial a party has failed to establish these to the appropriate standards, he would lose to stand. The incidence of the burden is usually clear from the pleadings and usually, it is incumbent on the plaintiff or complainant to prove what he pleaded or contends. On the other hand, the evidential burden may shift from one party to another as the trial progresses according to the balance of evidence given at any particular stage; the burden rests upon the party who would fail if no evidence at all, or no further evidence, as the case may be is adduced by either side (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition para 13). While the former, the legal burden arising on the pleadings is mentioned in Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the latter, the evidential burden, is referred to in Section
102 thereof. [G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen (AIR 1987 AP139) affirmed in Bharat Barrel Vs. Amin Chand [(1999) 3 SCC 35] ]

28. In the light of above citations, and through evidence and exhibitsmarked, the complainant has proved his legal burden. To the same, the accused has not disproved. The accused has introduced defence theory which is evidential burden which is oral evidence and documents only which is not proved by accused through any material evidence. In any event, as seen above, the complainant has established their case beyond the reasonable doubt through evidence of PW1 that the accused had borrowed the cheques debt from the complainant and in evidence thereof, executed the subject cheques. On the other hand, the accused has miserably failed to establish his defence version in any angle and even the projected evidence as discussed above is found to be unreliable and unacceptable. Since the evidential burden has not been proved it will not shift to complainant.
29. In this aspect a Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court inRangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied by Learned counsel for accused had occasion to elaborately consider provisions of Sections 138 and 139 and laid down the following. In the above case, trial court had acquitted the accused in a case relating to Dishonour of cheque under Section 138. The High Court had reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused. In the above case, the accused had admitted signatures on the cheque.
Hon’ble Apex court held that where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged, a presumption has to be raised that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability, however, this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. In Paragraph No.13, following has been laid down:-
“13. The High Court in its order noted that in the course of the trial proceedings, the accused had admitted that the signature on the impugned cheque (No. 0886322 dated 8-2-2001) was indeed his own. Once this fact has been acknowledged, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. With regard to the present facts, the High Court found that the defence raised by the accused was not probable.”
The above citations are squarely applicable to the present case. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption.
30. The first contention of Learned Counsel for Accused is that The way in which Authorised person filed Complaint is Bad in Law. Under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Only Payee / Holder in due course / Natural Person / Power of Attorney can set criminal law in motion. In this case Authorised representative of Complainant has filed case which is not permissible under law. Hence, the Complaint is not maintainable.
Further, PW.2 Viswanathan S/o. Perumal, (Senior Associate, Loan Operations) Authorised signatory, during cross-examination has deposed that and has not answered for questions with respect to any rules by
Complainant company authorizing Authorised Representative to file Complaint, hence, Authorised Person cannot file complaint and depose evidence. Further, Board Resolution has not marked.
To answer the same, the complainant has executed Board Resolution vide Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 to U.P.Prakasham, Director to filed complaint against Accused and represented by its Authorised signatore General Manager
S.Sivaramakrishnan. The relevant portion of Resolution is as follows. Further Resolved that Mr.U.P.Prakasham, Director, be and is hereby authorized to engage the services of Mr.N.Premkumar, Advocate at 346, (Old No.161)Thambu Chetty Street, First Floor, Chennai-600 001 to handle the above Sec.138 (b) case and Mr.S.SIvaramakrishnan, General Manager of the Company be and is hereby authorized to execute all the documents in filing the Sec.138(b) case and giving evidence against the above party on behalf of the Company. The resolution bears seal of Company and signed by Senior General Manager. Hence, it is valid Board Resolution. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for Accused watered down.
31. The second defence of learned counsel for Accused is that Time Barred Debt: Debt itself time barred. Loan date is 28.03.2016. But, cheques obtained on 25.05.2019. Though, Complaint stated in para 4, Accused has paid part amount, to show continuation of loan, is not stated in Proof Affidavit. It has to be supported by supported by pleading since, the nature of case is Quasi-Criminal Proceedings. Under Section 25 of Contract Act, for revival of Contract, there must be Agreement.
To answer the same, The accused has examined Shankar S/o. Mani, Assistant for Accused in his Hospital, dated 11.12.2025, has deposed that he worked as Assistant at Dr.Sadhan Thirumalai Kumar’s Hospital. He has worked with him from 1991. He worked as Manager in Hospital. This case is filed as if the accused borrowed loan from New Link Finance. The above loan was obtained Accused during the year 2010. It was Rs.30 Lakhs and Rs.25 Lakhs. He was working with accused from 2010 during borrowel of loan and they have been repaying. Loan repaid monthly and whenever money earned. He forgets, how much amount loan repaid monthly and whenever money earned, but Rs.35,00,000/- paid to New Link Finance
Company by accused Dr. Sadhan Thirumalai Kumar as one time settlement.
Likewise, accused repaid entire loan amount borrowed from Complainant. Hence, the debt is revived once starting of repayment. Hence, the debt is valid and not time barred. Further, the Complaint is filed in time and has not suffered by law of Limitation. Therefore, the next defence also turned turtle.
32. The third defence taken by learned counsel for accused is that
Originally Complaint was filed by Sivaramakrisnan General Manager of the Complainant finance Company as authorized Signatory. He relies upon or one resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Complainant Company as its meeting held on 28.06.2019 at its office. But, in resolution consciously absent about what by law or Articles of Association, Memorandum of Association authorizing the Board of Directors to appoint authorized signatory to file Criminal case against Accused on behalf of the company and depose before the court of law about this case. The complaint is filed not by competent person, Complaint cannot be entertained under section 200 of Cr.P.C., and Complaint itself is not sustainable in the eye of law it goes to the very foundation of the case. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable.
To answer the same, The learned counsel for Accused has argued that Complaint by one person and evidence given by different person which is against procedure known to law. To answer the same, law permits when Complainant is Company an Artificial Juridical Person can be represented through person authorized by Board Resolution. In the instant case the
Director who filed the Complaint, PW.1 and PW.2 all were authorized by Complainant Company within the purview of law. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for accused cannot be countenanced. Further, the complainant has executed Board Resolution vide Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 to U.P.Prakasham, Director to filed complaint against Accused and represented by its Authorised signatore General Manager S.Sivaramakrishnan. The relevant portion of Resolution is as follows. Further Resolved that Mr.U.P.Prakasham, Director, be and is hereby authorized to engage the services of Mr.N.Premkumar, Advocate at 346, (Old No.161)Thambu Chetty Street, First Floor, Chennai-600 001 to handle the above Sec.138 (b) case and Mr.S.SIvaramakrishnan, General Manager of the Company be and is hereby authorized to execute all the documents in filing the Sec.138(b) case and giving evidence against the above party on behalf of the Company. The resolution bears seal of Company and signed by Senior General Manager. Hence, it is valid Board Resolution. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for Accused watered down.
33. Yet another contention of learned counsel for accused is that the Accused has issued signed blank cheque to the Complainant. In this regard, the contention of accused is that blank cheque was filled by complainant, hence, no liability arise. The case of defence is that Accused gave signed blank cheque only that to Complainant and the remaining portions were not filed by him which are in different ink, letters etc., It is admitted case of the accused, that the signature found in the cheque is that of him and the cheque was given to Complainant and the later alone known the Complainant. To answer the same, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 deals with inchoate stamped instruments. Such instruments can be filled up by the holder of the instrument and can be put to use, where the signature of the drawer is not in dispute. The applicability of Section 20 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is now well settled. Useful reference can be made from
Kalaiselvi Vs. A. Sivasubramanian reported in [2015 – 3 – MWN (cr.) DCC 69 (Mad)]. The onus is upon the accused to prove that he did not receive any loan or did not incur any liability in favour of the respondent and that the cheque was given only as a security for a different transaction. Therefore, the handwriting found in the body of the cheque may not really have a bearing, and therefore the contention of accused is liable to be rejected. Mere asking questions during cross-examination of PW.1 that to denied by complainant is not sufficient to disprove the liability. Further, The Accused come forward with her defence theory stated only during cross-examination of PW.1 and Defence Evidence stage, but failed to prove the payment made for cheque amount, hence the entire defence theory is construed as after thought and the contention of accused cannot be countenanced.
34. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate a citation in a case between BIR SINGH vs. MUKESH KUMAR (Criminal Appeal Nos.
230-231 of 2019) rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as follows.
38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towardssome payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.
39. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed thecheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent-accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second question is also answered in the negative.
40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by theaccused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt
35. This court has carefully perused the records and the materials available in the case Records. For properly appreciating the facts of the case and the legal aspects to be determined, a reference is necessary to the relevant statutory provisions. The following are the essential ingredients for constituting the offence u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act: i) Person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained in the bank for payment of certain amount of money to another person from out of that account, ii) The cheque should have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability; iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. Iv) That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; vi) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. In this case, all the above mentioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the N I Act.
36. The Next arguments of learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd Accused is that the cheque issued were Non-CTS Cheques. Reserve Bank of India has issued a directive in 2012 mandating that all banks must process only CTS cheques. Non-CTS Cheque are not valid. To answer the same, it is admitted by all accused that they have issued subject cheques. The burden to replace Non-CTS cheque in place of CTS is with accused. Hence, it is the bounden duty and responsibility lies on Accused only. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for accused turned turtle.
The Learned Counsel for Accused has relied following Citations which are as follows.
In a case between M/s.Haryana State Cooperative Supply and marketing Federation Ltd., Coimbatore by its Power Holder Devender Kumarlal Vs. M/s. Jayam Textiles, Proprietory concern by its Proprietor, Pritam Satheja, 18/7, Ginning Factory Road, Singanalluy, Coimbatore & Another in reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 69 CC in Hon’ble High Court.
In a case between C.Ramesh Vs. S.Sakthivel in reported in 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 45 (Mad.) in Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
In a case between P.Ramamoorthy Vs. P.Ananthan in reported in 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.) DCC 22 (Mad.) in Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
In a case between Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti industries in reported in 2025(1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 54 (SC) in Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
In a case between Shankar Finance and Investments V. State of Andra Pradesh and others in reported in 2009 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 35 (SC) in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
There is no dispute in the ratios laid down in the citations by Hon’ble Apex Court. Whereas, the facts of the case differ in the instant case. Hence, the above citations are not applicabile to this case.
37. The Legislative intent and object underlying the provision contained in the Chapter XVII Comprising Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was aimed at inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to Negotiable Instrument in business and day to day transactions by making dishonor of such instruments an offence. Therefore, the defence taken by the Accused and to rebut the presumption are watered down and the complainant has proved his case but the accused has miserably failed to disprove the same.
38. From the foregoing discussions, this court is of the consideredopinion that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has failed to establish her probable defence and has failed to discharge the burden upon her and thus this court is of the considered view that the complainant has fulfilled the basic ingredients of Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the charge against the accused is proved by the complainant beyond any doubts. This court also as a corollary comes to the conclusion that the Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 two Cheques were given by the accused to the complainant to discharge the legally enforceable debt for the total cheques amount of Rs.1,70,27,101/- as seen from the Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 and as the said cheques were returned for the reason of “Funds Insufficient” vide Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6 Two Return Memos which would also attracts the offence under sec.138 N.I.Act and after the Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 two legal notice too, the accused has not repaid the amount within the statutory period and when the accused has failed to establish her defence, the accused is found guilty under the Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Question of Sentence:
39. Today, the submission of Accused, was heard on the question of
sentence and he has replied as follows: மேவறு எதுவும் மசால்வதற்கில்ணை/.

Designated Special Court for MPs/MLAs. III Metropolitan Magistrate / III Judicial Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
40. Reason and Decision on Question of Sentence:
The object of Chapter XVII of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is instituted as penalties in cases ‘Of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the accounts’ and contains in Sections 138 to 142, is to promote the efficacy of banking operations and to ensure credibility in transacting business through cheque. Parliament had power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing sections 138 to 142 under entry Nos. 45 and 46 of List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Complainant has lost money due to Accused and suffered financial loss. Therefore, the offence committed is heinous and deplorable.
41. I would, therefore, uphold and maintain conviction of the Accusedunder Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the Pleas of Accused is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid discussion and on balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in my opinion, the present case does not fall under the category of, to show leniency case. i.e. there is no alternative but to impose sentence. It is a fit case, where the Accused should be directed to suffer sentence, Since, the gravity of offence is serious, no leniency could be considered .

Designated Special Court for MPs/MLAs.
III Metropolitan Magistrate / III Judicial Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai.

In the result, in view of the reasons stated above, this court found Accused is guilty of dishonour of cheques for the offence u/s of 138 N I Act r/w Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Two Years simple imprisonment and to pay Compensation of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. being the cheques amount to the Complainant within two months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of the compensation, the accused shall undergo a further period of Three months Simple Imprisonment, a default sentence considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Steno typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of December 2025.

Designated Special Court for MPs/MLAs.
III Metropolitan Magistrate / III Judicial Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

List of Witnesses on the side of Prosecution :
SL. No. Witness Name
1 PW.1 S.Sivaramakrishnan
Authorized Signatory General Manager of M/s. New Link Overseas Finance Limited.
2 PW.2 P.Viswanathan
Authorized Signatory of M/s. New Link Overseas Finance Limited.
List of Exhibits on the side of Prosecution:-
Judicial Form No. 68 (Rule 49) Exhibits Index
IN THE COURT OF DESIGNATED SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs viz., III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT / III JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
Calendar Case No. 377 of 2025
S.No.
of the
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit and its date Date, when the exhibit
was filed in the case How
Marked By
whom filed Remark
s
1 Board Resolution of Complainant Company Newlink Overseas
Finance Limited related to
Hypothecation Loan
Account No.TLK 15 K
16066. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.1 PW.1
2 Board Resolution of Complainant Company Newlink Overseas
Finance Limited related to
Hypothecation Loan
HYP/085/K10-K11 dated
28.06.2019. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.2 PW.1

3 Cheque bearing Number 761846 dated 21.05.2019 for Rs.50,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs
Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi
Branch. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.3 PW.1
4 Bank Return Memo dated
24.05.2019 15.07.2019 Ex.P.4 PW.1
5 Cheque bearing Number 761847 for Rs.50,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs
Only) of Indian Overseas Bank, Puliyangudi
Branch. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.5 P.W.1
6 Return Memo dated
24.05.2019 15.07.2019 Ex.P.6 PW.1
7 Legal Notice with Acknowledgments of Cheque bearing Number 761846 dated 31.05.2019. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.7 PW.1
8 Legal Notice with Acknowledgments of Cheque bearing Number 761847 dated 31.05.2019. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.8 PW.1
9 Statement of account vide., No.TLK 15 K
16066. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.9 PW.1
10 The Statement of account vide., No.TLK 15 K
16068. 15.07.2019 Ex.P.10 PW.1
11 Order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) Chennai in CP (CA)/85/(CHE)/2024. 25.08.2025 Ex.P.11 P.W.2
12 Modification Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble National 25.08.2025 Ex.P.12 P.W.2
Company Law Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) in IA
(CA)/86/(CHE)/2025 .
13 Letter of Authorization dated 02.06.2005 issued by the Administrator. 25.08.2025 Ex.P.13 P.W.2
14 Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) in IA
(CA)/122/(CHE)/2025. 25.08.2025 Ex.P.14 P.W.2
List of D efense Witness : .
SL. No. Witness Name
1 D.W.1 Shankar S/o. Mani
List of D efense Exhibits : Nil

Designated Special Court for MPs/MLAs. III Metropolitan Magistrate / III Judicial Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
1. No witness detained more than 3 times.
2. Nature of disposal intimated to the Complainant concerned.
3. The Accused has furnished sureties U/s.88 of Cr.PC., during trial
4. Complainant present.
5. Accused present.