Madras High Court
Balasubramani vs Dhandapani on 17 July, 2026
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
and
CRL MP No.12322 & 12320 of 2026
Balasubramani
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Dhandapani
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: To call for the records relating to the Judgment dated 11.12.2025 passed
in Crl.A.No.50 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri confirming the Judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed in STC.No.222
of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri set aside
the said Judgments and consequently acquit the petitioner of the Charge u/s.138
of the NI Act, and ass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Sudhan
For Respondent(s): Mr. V Srihari
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated
11.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in
C.A.No.50 of 2024, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
05.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in
S.T.C.No.222 of 2022, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to
undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.12,00,000/-, in
default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment.
2.Heard Mr. M.Sudhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr. V. Srihari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3.The respondent/complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner and the respondent
were known to each other for several years and, taking advantage of the said
acquaintance, the petitioner approached the respondent seeking financial
assistance for clearing certain debts and meeting his business commitments.
It was the specific case of the respondent that, believing the representation made
by the petitioner, he advanced a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as hand loan on
12.11.2021. Towards discharge of the said liability, the petitioner issued cheque
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
bearing No.259768 dated 14.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on
ICICI Bank, Dharmapuri Branch.
4.When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was
returned unpaid with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, the
respondent issued a statutory notice dated 24.12.2021 calling upon the petitioner
to pay the cheque amount. The said notice was admittedly served on the
petitioner. However, the petitioner neither issued any reply denying the
transaction nor complied with the demand made in the notice. Hence, the
respondent proceeded to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.
5.During the course of trial, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and
examined one Ranganathan as PW2. The cheque, bank return memo, statutory
notice and other connected documents were marked on the side of the
respondent. The petitioner did not dispute the signature found in the cheque or
that the cheque belonged to his bank account.
6.The defence of the petitioner was that he had not borrowed any amount
of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondent and that the cheque in question was not
issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. According to the
petitioner, the cheque was issued only as a security in connection with a loan of
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly obtained from a finance concern situated at Palacode
and the same was subsequently misused by the respondent.
7.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, by judgment dated 05.08.2024, found the
petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced him as stated above.
8.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred C.A.No.50 of 2024
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The learned
Appellate Judge, after independently re-appreciating the evidence available on
record, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 11.12.2025.
9.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present
Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
10.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
judgments of the Courts below are contrary to law and evidence. It was
contended that the respondent failed to establish the existence of a legally
enforceable debt of Rs.12,00,000/-; that the alleged loan transaction was a cash
transaction without any supporting document; that the financial capacity of the
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
complainant to advance such a huge amount was not established; and that no
bank records, income tax returns or other financial materials were produced.
11.Learned counsel further submitted that the defence of the petitioner
that the cheque was issued only as a security in connection with a loan obtained
from a finance concern at Palacode was a probable defence sufficient to rebut
the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in John
K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham, APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti
International Fashion Linkers, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Basalingappa v.
Mudibasappa, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, M.S. Narayana Menon v.
State of Kerala and Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde.
12.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the petitioner has admitted the issuance of the cheque and the signature
thereon. Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions
under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the respondent. It
was submitted that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption by producing
any acceptable evidence and that the concurrent findings of the Courts below do
not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
13.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
14.At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction
under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is limited. This Court is not required to
undertake a re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate Court unless the
findings recorded by the Courts below are shown to be perverse, illegal or
resulting in miscarriage of justice.
15.In the present case, the petitioner has admitted that the cheque belongs
to his account and the signature contained therein is his signature. Once the
execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections
118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder
of the cheque. Such presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable
debt or liability.
16.Though the accused is entitled to rebut the statutory presumption by
raising a probable defence, such defence must be supported by acceptable
materials. A mere suggestion during cross-examination or a bald statement
without any supporting evidence would not be sufficient to rebut the
presumption.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
17.In the present case, the specific defence of the petitioner is that the
cheque was issued as security for a loan obtained from a finance concern at
Palacode. However, no material whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner
to substantiate such defence. The name of the finance concern, the alleged loan
documents, repayment details or any witness connected with the said
transaction have not been brought on record.
18.Further, though the statutory notice was admittedly received by the
petitioner, he did not choose to issue any reply denying the alleged transaction
or explaining that the cheque was issued only as security. The said conduct is
certainly a relevant circumstance while appreciating the defence raised by the
petitioner during trial.
19.The contention regarding the financial capacity of the complainant
also does not persuade this Court. The complainant entered the witness box and
subjected himself to cross-examination. Both the Courts below have considered
his evidence and found the same to be reliable. The absence of income tax
records or bank statements, by itself, would not demolish the statutory
presumption available in favour of the complainant, particularly when the
defence of the petitioner has not been probabilised.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
20.The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterate the settled position that the presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and that the accused can discharge the
burden by establishing a probable defence. However, in the present case, the
petitioner has failed to place any acceptable material to rebut the statutory
presumption.
21.This Court also finds that the learned Appellate Court has
independently considered the evidence and confirmed the findings of the trial
Court by assigning proper reasons. The concurrent findings recorded by both
the Courts below are based on evidence available on record and do not suffer
from any perversity or illegality warranting interference.
22.It is also relevant to record that, pending the present revision, the
petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.7763 of 2026 seeking suspension of sentence. This
Court, by order dated 30.04.2026, considering the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner, suspended the sentence imposed on him subject to certain
conditions.
23.One of the specific conditions imposed by this Court under Condition
No.5(i) of the said order was that the petitioner shall deposit the entire cheque
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- before the trial Court as a condition for suspension of
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
sentence. The said condition was imposed taking note of the submission made
by the petitioner that he was willing to deposit the cheque amount to
demonstrate his bona fides.
24.However, the petitioner has admittedly failed to comply with the said
condition and has not deposited the amount as directed by this Court. Having
obtained the benefit of suspension of sentence based upon his undertaking, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to disregard the condition imposed by this Court.
The conduct of the petitioner in not complying with Condition No.5(i) is also a
relevant circumstance while considering the relief sought by him.
25.This Court, while considering the present revision, has independently
examined the merits of the case and has found that the petitioner has failed to
establish any ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the
Courts below. The non-compliance of the conditional order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.7763 of 2026 further disentitles the petitioner from claiming any
discretionary relief.
26.In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the judgment dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in C.A.No.50 of 2024 confirming the judgment
dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
S.T.C.No.222 of 2022.
27.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The
judgment dated 11.12.2025 passed in C.A.No.50 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment dated
05.08.2024 passed in S.T.C.No.222 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, is hereby confirmed.
28.In view of the dismissal of the revision petition and the failure of the
petitioner to comply with Condition No.5(i) imposed in the order dated
30.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.7763 of 2026, the suspension of sentence granted by
this Court shall stand vacated.
29.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
30.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, shall take
immediate and appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure the presence
of the petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence and to
recover the compensation amount, if any.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
31.The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a copy of this order to
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, for information and necessary compliance.
17-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SHA
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SHA
CRL RC No. 975 of 2026
17-07-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
