C.THANGARAJ vs N.SATHYAMOORTHY
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
Crl.MP.No.8787 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011968792022}
C.Thangaraj, S/o. Chellaiaya, No.10, Light House
Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
N.Sathyamoorthy, S/o. P.Narayanasamy, No.513,
Big Bazaar Street, Muthu Complex, Coimbatore -
641 001. (No.70, Kempatty Colony, Coimbatore)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2022, passed in CA.No.205 of 2018, by
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the
judgement of conviction and sentence, passed in CC.No.157 of 2013, dated
28.04.2018, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Judicial Magistrate
Level-2, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Pushpalatha
For Respondent(s): Ms.A.Pooja Varshini, Legal Aid Counsel
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2022, passed in CA.No.205 of 2018,
by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming
the judgement of conviction and sentence, passed in CC.No.157 of 2013,
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
dated 28.04.2018, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Judicial
Magistrate Level-2, Coimbatore.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:-
(a) The Revision Petitioner is the accused and the Respondent is the
complainant. In the month of January 2005, the accused had borrowed a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant. In spite of repeated demands,
the accused did not repay the amount. After filing of the complaint
before the Police concerned, the accused had executed a promissory note,
dated 25.07.2005, for the said amount. After repeated demands, towards
the discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued a cheque dated
28.10.2009, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was
presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured, for the reason “No
such account”. Hence, in respect of dishonour of the said cheque, the
complainant had preferred the complaint against the accused in
CC.No.157 of 2013, before the Trial Court, for the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for recovery of said cheque
amount.
(b)Before the Trial Court, on the side of the complainant, PW.1 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. On the side of the accused,
neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked
(c) By the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 28.04.2018, the Trial
Court had convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with
interest 6% p.a. as compensation to the complainant, within one month,
in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. In the
appeal filed by the accused, the lower appellate court had, by its
impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2022,
confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.
Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused,
seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard Ms.R.Pushpalatha, the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and Ms.A.Pooja Varshini, the Legal Aid Counsel for the
Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused the entire
materials placed on record.
4. According to the Revision Petitioner, the alleged promissory note was not
produced before the courts below, which creates a doubt in the case of the
Prosecution and no opportunity was given to the Revision Petitioner. The
complainant failed to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt and
there is no legally enforceable debt by the Revision Petitioner to the
complainant under the cheque, in question. The courts below erred in
holding that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the legally
enforceable debt and also erred in convicting and sentencing the Petitioner,
ignoring the specified provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
based on surmises and conjectures. Both the courts below erred in law in
not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. Hence, the findings
of the courts below are unreasonable and perverse and consequently, the
accused is entitled for acquittal, by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that though there are
several other contentions raised by the Revision Petitioner, once the
accused has not denied that the cheque belonged to him and also not
denied his signature in the cheque in question and when the accused
failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by letting in valid evidence, the impugned judgements of
conviction and sentence of the courts below, drawing presumption under
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant
that the cheque in question was issued to discharge the legally enforceable
debt and consequently, imposing the impugned punishments, are justified
and hence, no interference by this Court is required.
6. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the Trial Court has found
that the accused had admitted that the cheque belonged to him and that the
accused did not deny his signature in Ex.P1 cheque and that the accused
failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by letting in valid evidence and that the accused has
failed to probabilise his defence on the basis of the materials available on
record. Consequently, the Trial Court, in the light of the concrete evidence
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
to show that the signature found in the cheque in question is that of the
accused and when the accused did not deny his signature found in the
cheque in question and also the issuance of the cheque in question,
drawing presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
in favour of the complainant, has rightly held that the cheque in question
was drawn to discharge the legally enforceable debt, as per Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, the accused was found guilty of
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, by the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of
the Trial Court, the Accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest
at 6% p.a. as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for three months.
7. In the appeal filed, as against the judgement of conviction and sentence of
the Trial Court, by the accused before the lower appellate court, the lower
appellate court, by its impugned judgement of conviction and sentence,
had confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial
Court, on the same lines.
8. As stated above, the accused has not denied that the cheque belonged to
him and also not denied his signature found on the cheque in question. The
accused also failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
Negotiable Instruments Act, by letting in valid evidence.
9. In the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, reported in 2010-11-SCC- 441 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the accused admits his signature
in the cheque, then the presumption comes into play in favour of the
complainant. The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted as
under:-
“ 15. Coming back to the facts in the present case, we are in
agreement with the High Court's view that the accused did not raise
a probable defence. As noted earlier, the defence of the loss of a
blank cheque was taken up belatedly and the accused had
mentioned a different date in the `stop payment' instructions to his
bank. Furthermore, the instructions to `stop payment' had not even
mentioned that the cheque had been lost. A perusal of the trial
record also shows that the accused appeared to be aware of the fact
that the cheque was with the complainant. Furthermore, the very
fact that the accused had failed to reply to the statutory notice
under Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was
merit in the complainant's version. Apart from not raising a
probable defence, the appellant-accused was not able to contest the
existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The fact that the
accused had made regular payments to the complainant in relation
to the construction of his house does not preclude the possibility of
the complainant having spent his own money for the same purpose.
As per the record of the case, there was a slight discrepancy in the
complainant's version, in so far as it was not clear whether the
accused had asked for a hand loan to meet the construction-related
expenses or whether the complainant had incurred the said
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
expenditure over a period of time. Either way, the complaint
discloses the prima facie existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability since the complainant has maintained that his money was
used for the construction-expenses. Since the accused did admit that
the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption
comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with
regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.”
10. In the judgement rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Purushottam Maniklal Gandhi Versus Manohar K. Deshmukh and
another, reported in 2007 STPL(DC) 988(BOM); 2007(4) BOMCR404,
it has been held that if a person hands over a duly signed blank cheque,
thereby he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice and to
present the same for encashment. The cheque does not loose its sanctity
merely due to the fact that the same has been filled in by some other
person.
11. It is relevant to refer the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
AIR 2019 SC 2446, (Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar) , wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the presumption as to legally enforceable
debt, the rebuttal of signed blank cheque, if voluntarily presented to payee
towards the payment, payee may fill up the amount and other particulars,
that itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the
accused to prove the cheque was not issued for discharge of debtor liability
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
by adducing evidence.
12. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is
not able to point out any single piece of evidence, both oral and
documentary, in support of his contentions. But, on the side of the
complainant, this Court finds that there are ample evidence in support of
the case of the Respondent/ complainant, as discussed by the courts below.
Thus, this court, while concurring with the findings of the courts below,
does not find any error or illegality or perversity in the findings and the
impugned judgements of conviction and sentence of the courts below,
which warrants interference by this Court and accordingly, this Criminal
Revision Case, is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, in view of the above said discussions and reasons and in the
light of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to above,
this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . The impugned judgement of
conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2022, passed in CA.No.205 of 2018,
by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming
the judgement of conviction and sentence, passed in CC.No.157 of 2013,
dated 28.04.2018, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Judicial
Magistrate Level-2, Coimbatore, is confirmed.
14. The order, dated 21.06.2024, of the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
granting the relief of suspension of sentence to the Revision Petitioner,
shall stand cancelled. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. The File is consigned to
record.
15. The Trial Court is directed to act upon its judgement of conviction and
sentence, by securing the accused to undergo the conviction and sentence,
imposed upon him.
16. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Trial
Court, for its compliance and information, immediately.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Judicial Magistrate Level-2,
Coimbatore.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 1036 of 2024
02-11-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:04 pm )