Supreme Court – Daily Orders
A. Balakumar vs Prof. Mohanraj on 17 April, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6932 of 2023)
A. BALAKUMAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PROF. MOHANRAJ ….RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811, pursuant to a
complaint filed by the respondent-complainant
before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai (later transferred to the file of
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-
III, Saidapet, Chennai)2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.20
1 For short, “NI Act, 1881”.
2
17:03:30 IST
Reason: Hereinafter, being referred to as the “trial Court”.
1
4. The said complaint was instituted in respect of
the dishonour of a cheque issued to the respondent-
complainant by the appellant-accused for a sum of
Rs.2 lakhs. The learned trial Court, after trial
acquitted the appellant-accused vide judgment
dated 30th August, 2018.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-complainant
preferred an appeal which came up for hearing
before the learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai3, who, upon detailed consideration, vide
judgment dated 22nd January 2020, dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court
acquitting the appellant-accused.
6. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant
preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Judicature at Madras4 challenging the acquittal of
the appellant-accused. The High Court, vide order
dated 24th February, 2023, allowed the appeal and
while reversing the acquittal of the appellant-
accused recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by
the Sessions Judge, held the appellant-accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Sessions Judge”.
4 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.
2
of the NI Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for six (6) months, along with
a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (being double the cheque
amount), and, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo three (3) months of simple imprisonment.
7. The appellant-accused is before us by way of
the present appeal with special leave, assailing the
judgment rendered by the High Court, whereby he
has been convicted for the aforesaid offence and
sentenced as stated hereinabove.
8. We are ex facie of the considered view that the
High Court committed an error apparent on the face
of record by entertaining the petition filed by the
respondent-complainant, styled to be an appeal. The
scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 5
does not contemplate the maintainability of an
appeal to the High Court at the instance of the same
party once the appellate jurisdiction against an
order of acquittal has already been exercised. In
such circumstances, the only permissible course of
action available to the respondent–complainant was
to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High
5 For short, “CrPC”.
3
Court under Section 397 CrPC read with Section
401 CrPC.
9. It is well settled that, in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal,
the High Court is precluded from converting a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The scope
of interference is limited, and at best, the High
Court may direct a de novo trial if the judgment of
the trial court is found to suffer from manifest
illegality or perversity.
10. On perusal of the order passed by the High
Court, we find that the respondent-complainant
seems not to have challenged the order dated 22 nd
January, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge in
Criminal Appeal No.611/2018, whereby the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the respondent-
complainant, challenging the judgment dated 30th
August, 2018 passed by the learned trial court,
came to be dismissed. Thus, it was clearly a case of
unjust exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the High
Court in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-
accused, which already stood affirmed in appeal.
Despite recording in the impugned order that the
4
appeal against the judgment of the trial court had
been preferred by the complainant before the
Session Judge and stood rejected, the High Court
nonetheless proceeded to entertain and decide the
matter, overlooking the finality attached to the
earlier adjudication.
11. However, during the pendency of the present
appeal, the appellant-accused, on 17 th March, 2026
represented by learned senior counsel Mr. S.
Nagamuthu, made an offer to pay a sum of Rs.4
lakhs to the respondent-complainant. During the
course of hearing today, three demand drafts
aggregating to a total sum of Rs.4 lakhs have been
handed over to the learned counsel for respondent-
complainant, the particulars whereof are set out
hereinbelow: –
(i) Demand Draft dated 04.04.2026 drawn on
Indian Overseas Bank amounting to
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).
(ii) Demand Draft dated 04.04.2026 drawn on
Indian Overseas Bank amounting to
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
5
(iii) Demand Draft dated 06.04.2026 drawn on
State Bank of India, Drawee Branch CCPC,
Chennai, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only).
12. In view of the above, we direct that the offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act 1881, for which the
appellant-accused has been convicted by the High
Court, upon reversal of his acquittal, shall stand
compounded in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act,
1881.
13. The impugned judgment is accordingly set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under
Section 138 of the NI Act.
14. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 17, 2026.
6 7 ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
6932/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 24-02-2023 in CRLA No. 703/2022 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras]
A. BALAKUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PROF. MOHANRAJ Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
Date : 17-04-2026 This petition was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Sajal Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of
the signed order.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
8
