V.GOPAL, AGED 54 YRS, vs V.VIJAYAKUMAR
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL.A.No.427 of 2017
CNR:{HCMA011528402017}
V.Gopal
S/o.Venkatachalam
..Appellant(s)
Vs
V.Vijayakumar
S/o.Veerasamy
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the
records of the judgment of acquittal dated 08.03.2017 made in C.A.No.61 of
2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur,
which reversed the judgment dated 04.05.2016 made in C.C.No.178 of 2015 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruppur and set
aside the same and convict the respondent/accused and order suitable
compensation to the appellant.
For Appellant(s): Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy
For Respondent(s): MR.J.Franklin
J U D G M E N T
The appeal challenges the judgment passed in C.A.No.61 of 2016,
reversing the judgment of conviction passed against the respondent herein in
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
C.C.No.178 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court, Tiruppur.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent borrowed a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- on 04.10.2011 for his business needs; that he executed a
promissory note, promising to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of
12% per annum; that towards the discharge of the said liability, the respondent
issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,18,000/- on 04.01.2012; that when the cheque
was presented for collection on 08.02.2012, it was returned for the reason
“Funds Insufficient”; that the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent
on 27.02.2012; that the respondent, through his lawyer, sent an interim reply
making false allegations; and that the respondent failed to pay the cheque
amount and thus committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. [hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’].
3. Before the trial Court, the appellant examined, himself as P.W.1, and
his brother, one Viswanathan, as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The
respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and one Lokesh Kumar, an employee of
Cholamandalam Finance Limited, as D.W.2 and marked Exs.D1 and D2.
4. The trial Court found that the appellant had established that the
respondent had issued the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt; that the
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
respondent had not denied his signature on the cheque; and that the cheque was
returned for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The trial Court, therefore, held that
the appellant had proved the foundational facts and that the respondent had not
rebutted the statutory presumption. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the
respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
5. On the appeal filed by the respondent, the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur reversed the findings of guilt and acquitted the
respondent on the ground that the appellant had not proved the execution of
Ex.P1 and passing of consideration in the said transaction and therefore, the
respondent was entitled to acquittal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
findings of the lower Appellate Court are perverse; that the lower Appellate
Court had reversed the well-considered judgment of the trial Court; that the
respondent had not denied the signature either in Ex.P1 promissory note or in
Ex.P2 cheque; that since the foundational facts had been proved, the burden was
on the respondent to rebut the presumption, which he had failed to do; and that,
therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra ,
submitted that the appellant, who was examined as P.W.1, and his brother,
P.W.2, had given contrary versions as to when and where Ex.P1 was prepared;
that the appellant had not established his capacity to lend a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
in cash; that the appellant had misused Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, which were actually
handed over to one Rajasekar of Cholamandalam Finance Limited, a friend of
the appellant; and that the respondent had established those facts and
consequently rebutted the statutory presumption. The learned counsel, therefore,
submitted that the judgment of acquittal is justified and that there is no reason to
interfere with the said judgment.
8. It is not in dispute that Ex.P1 promissory note was signed by the
respondent. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P2 cheque was also signed by the
respondent. The fact that the cheque was dishonored for the reason “Funds
Insufficient” has been proved by the appellant.
9. The defence of the respondent was that both Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were
handed over to one Rajasekar, who was then working in Cholamandalam
Finance Limited, to obtain a top-up loan. It is his further defence that a
complaint was lodged against Cholamandalam Finance Limited and the said
Rajasekar before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur. Though in the
deposition, it is stated that the complaint was dated 20.03.2016, the learned
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
counsel for the respondent would submit that it is a typographical error, and that
the complaint was actually lodged in the year 2013, as seen from the receipt.
10. The respondent was examined as D.W.1. In his cross-examination,
D.W.1 would state that the complaint lodged against Cholamandalam Finance
Limited and Rajasekar had no connection with the instant complaint. It is not
the case of the respondent that he had lodged any other complaint against
Rajasekar or the appellant for the alleged misuse of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
11. The other ground raised by the respondent is that there are
contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to where Ex.P1 was
written and executed. The fact that it was executed in the house of the appellant
is not disputed. The only contradiction is that P.W.1, the appellant herein states
that Ex.P1 was prepared by the respondent and brought to his house. P.W.2,
who is the witness to the said document, however, states that the document was
prepared in the house of P.W.1. This is a very minor contradiction and would
not discredit the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The said contradiction alone is
not sufficient to hold that Ex.P1 was not executed by the respondent in favour
of the appellant. Therefore, this Court is the view that the findings of the lower
Appellate Court that the appellant had not established that Ex.P1 was executed
for consideration is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The trial
Court had considered all the above facts and held that the respondent had not
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
rebutted the statutory presumption. Even in the reply notice sent by the counsel
for the respondent, there is nothing to suggest that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were
misused by the appellant. Though it is called as an interim reply, admittedly, the
respondent had not sent any final reply. Therefore, this Court is the view that
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
12. The respondent/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of
the N.I.Act, as rightly held by the trial Court. However, considering the fact that
the transaction took place in the year 2011 and that the object of Section 138 of
the N.I.Act is to compensate the complainant, this Court is inclined to modify
the sentence imposed by the trial Court in the following manner :
13. The respondent/accused is sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) and shall deposit the said amount within
a period of four weeks from today, and in default, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months. On deposit of the said fine amount,
the appellant/complainant shall be paid compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
14. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ms
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirupur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court,
Tiruppur.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )
CRL A No. 427 of 2017
SUNDER MOHAN J.
ms
CRL.A.No.427 of 2017
12-11-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:20 pm )