Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3181 (MAD)

Raja Venkatesh v. F. Ebenesar Rathna Kumar

2022-09-06

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pleased to set aside the order of acquittal dated 12.11.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2016 by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur and to confirm the order dated 20.09.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.177 of 2015 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Fast Track Judge, Magisterial Level No.II, Poonamalee, Tiruvallur District.) 1. This Criminal Appeal is against the acquittal, filed by the complainant in a private complaint alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The complaint filed by the complainant was taken on file in S.T.C.No.17 of 2015, on the file of the Fast Track Magisterial Level – II, Poonamalee, Thiruvallur District. 3. Upon furnishing copies as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and upon questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegation and stood trial. 4. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Bank Manager of Indian Bank, Valasaravakkam was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 were marked. 5. Thereupon, when the accused was questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false. 6. Thereafter, one Ramesh, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Valasaravakkam, was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 were marked on behalf of the accused. 7. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the arguments of the Learned Counsel on either side and by the Judgment dated 20.09.2016, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and imposed the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months and imposed the cheque amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo one and half months Simple Imprisonment. 8. Aggrieved by the above said Judgment, the respondent herein/accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.58 of 2016, and by the Judgment dated 12.11.2018, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, allowed the said appeal and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed before this Court. 9. 8. Aggrieved by the above said Judgment, the respondent herein/accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.58 of 2016, and by the Judgment dated 12.11.2018, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, allowed the said appeal and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed before this Court. 9. On perusal of the Judgment against which the appeal is filed, it is clear that even as per the complaint, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only), on 22.01.2019 and executed Ex.P-1/promissory note and again he borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), on 07.03.2019 and executed Ex.P-2 /promissory note. Again he borrowed a sum of Rs.3,94,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand only), on 07.11.2019 and executed Ex.P-3 /promissory note. It is alleged that in repayment thereof, on 24.02.2015, on demand, three cheques were issued, therefore, finding that on the date of issue of the cheque, even admittedly the debt was time barred, the Lower Appellate Court acquitted the accused. 10. The only contention made before this Court is that there is an endorsement for the part payment of Rs.25,000/-, on the reverse of Ex.P-1 /promissory note. But, however, firstly, it is not signed by the accused. The endorsement was not marked. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has correctly found that since the date of issue of cheques exceeds three years from the borrowal of the money, and in the absence of any acknowledgement of debt, which is being executed, there is no legally enforceable debt and acquitted the accused. 11. It is now very well settled that in an appeal against the acquittal, unless the view of the Court, which acquitted the accused, is not a possible view at all, this Court will interfere with the same in an appeal against the acquittal. Thus, there is no merits in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.