B.RAJENDIRAKUMAR vs P.KARTHIKEYAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011648252021}
B.Rajendirakumar
S/o. Bheemraj Jain,
No.14/10, Kadambarayan Street,
Tiruvannamalai.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
P.Karthikeyan
S/o. Pachaiyappan,
Banana Mandi,
89, Kamatchi Amman Koil Street,
Tiruvannamalai.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the entire records in connection with STC No.12 of
2013 dated 26.04.2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Tiruvannamalai and set aside the
same.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Arunachalakani
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Balu
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal dated
26.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magisterial Level) at Tiruvannamalai in STC No.12 of 2013.
2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act [in short, ‘the NI Act’], stating that the
respondent and his brother borrowed a sum of Rs.9,02,400/- for
purchasing a lorry registered as TN25J6576; that the respondent had
hypothecated the vehicle and an endorsement was made in the R.C.book;
that the respondent and his brother had jointly executed a hire purchase
agreement and agreed to pay the same in 36 monthly instalments; that
they also agreed to pay penal interest at the rate of 36% per annum; that
since the respondent had defaulted in repayment, the appellant issued a
notice dated 15.12.2012; that on receipt of the said notice, the respondent
issued a cheque for Rs.2,51,000/- on 05.01.2013 vide cheque bearing
No.037688, towards partial discharge of the said loan; that when the said
cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason
‘insufficient fund’; that inspite of the statutory notice issued on
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
11.01.2013, the respondent did not make any payment; and thus, the
respondent committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. Before the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as PW1
and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondent neither examined any
witness nor marked any document.
4. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record found
that the appellant had made contradictory statements in the complaint and
in his deposition as to the amount of loan, as regards, whether the loan
was given for purchase of one lorry or two lorries and as to whether the
loan was obtained by the respondent alone or jointly with his brother and
therefore, acquitted the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial
Court had taken into consideration certain minor contradictions in the
evidence of the appellant to hold that the respondent had rebutted the
statutory presumption; that the respondent had not denied his signature in
the cheque; that the respondent had admitted obtaining loan of
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
Rs.2,50,000/- and his defence that he had repaid the loan was not proved;
that the trial Court had not taken into consideration the documents filed
on behalf of the appellant viz., Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, which are Hire Purchase
Agreements, for two vehicles purchased by the respondent and his
brother out of the loan amount advanced by the appellant; that Ex.P10-
Ledger of loan repayment, would clearly show that the respondent was
due to pay money to the appellant; that Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, the copies of
the RC books would show that the vehicles were hypothecated to the
appellant; and that therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse and
liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra would submit
that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption; that the trial
Court has elaborately considered the evidence and on proper appreciation
of the evidence had rightly acquitted the respondent. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
7. It is the specific case of the appellant that he had lent
Rs.9,02,400/- on 05.04.2011 for purchase of a lorry bearing
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
Regn.No.TN25J6576. However, in the proof affidavit, the appellant had
stated that he had advanced a loan of Rs.6 Lakhs to the respondent and
his brother and that the total amount due including interest was
Rs.9,02,400/-. The appellant had produced Ex.P6, the Hire Purchase
Agreement to evidence the loan of Rs.6 Lakhs to the respondent.
However, in the first page of the document, the loan amount advanced is
shown as Rs.4,51,200/- and the instalment amount is shown as
Rs.12,550/-. The said page is unsigned. In the second page of the said
exhibit, it is stated that the appellant had advanced Rs.6 Lakhs to the
respondent as loan for purchase of one vehicle. Similarly, Ex.P7 is
another Hire Purchase Agreement, which pertains to the respondent’s
brother. In the first page of the hire purchase agreement, the loan amount
is mentioned as Rs.4,51,200/-. In the second page, the loan amount is
referred to as Rs.6 Lakhs. Therefore, the version of the appellant that he
had advanced a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs jointly to both the respondent and his
brother, is contrary to the records. The Hire Purchase Agreement refers
to another amount of Rs.4,51,200/-, which was not stated by the appellant
either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit. The appellant in the
cross-examination had admitted the discrepancy and had no explanation
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
for the variation in the amount of loan in the first page and second page
of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, the Hire Purchase Agreements. The suggestion put
by the defence is that the blank documents were filled up.
8. Further in the cross-examination, to a specific question put by
the defence as to which of the two versions, viz., whether loan of
Rs.9,02,400/- was advanced or a loan of Rs.6 Lakhs was advanced, the
appellant/complainant had given an evasive answer saying that both are
correct. The appellant had also admitted that, in the complaint he had not
referred to the loan advanced to the respondent’s brother for purchase of
another lorry bearing Regn.No.TN25F3488.
9. Though the appellant had stated that the cheque was issued after
the appellant had issued a lawyer’s notice on 15.12.2012, the said
lawyer’s notice was not produced and marked in the trial.
10. Though the case of the defence that they had only obtained a
loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and repaid the same, has also not been established,
this Court is of the view that the answers in the cross-examination of the
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
appellant, the relevant portion of which has been extracted in the
impugned judgment, suggests that the respondent had rebutted the
statutory presumption.
11. The documents produced by the appellant, his proof affidavit
and the averments in the complaint, are contrary to each other. The
appellant/complainant did not approach the Court with clean hands. He
had changed his stand as regards the nature and amount of liability at
every stage. It is also to be noted here that the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that though the original RC book is with the
appellant, the respondent had illegally sold the vehicle, thereby causing
huge loss to the appellant. However, it is seen that there is an
endorsement in Ex.P10, which reveals that the RC books were handed
over to the respondent.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has
correctly appreciated the facts and held the respondent not guilty and
acquitted him of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. This Court
finds no reason or whatsoever to interfere in the judgment and in any
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
case, it is not perverse, warranting an interference in the appeal against
acquittal.
13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment
of acquittal dated 26.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Tiruvannamalai, in STC No.12 of
2013, is confirmed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level),
Tiruvannamalai.
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery judgment in
CRL A No. 20 of 2022
05-11-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:35 pm )