The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a cheque bounce complaint filed after the limitation period, without any application to condone the delay, is bad in law. The Court said the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of such a complaint. Justice S. Karthikeyan dismissed a complainant’s appeal and confirmed a woman’s acquittal in a ₹1,20,000 cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Background
The appellant, Soundararajan, filed a private complaint alleging that the respondent, Saraswathi, borrowed ₹1,20,000 in cash from him on December 20, 2006. He said she promised to repay it within 50 days and issued a cheque for that amount. The cheque was returned for “insufficient funds”. The demand notice of April 9, 2007 came back with the endorsement “intimation delivered, unclaimed” on April 12, 2007.
On May 4, 2012, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, convicted the respondent and sentenced her to one year of simple imprisonment. She was also directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation. On July 31, 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul, set aside the conviction and acquitted her. The complainant then appealed to the High Court.
Arguments
Advocate S. Gokul Raj, appearing for the appellant, argued that the respondent had admitted her signature on the cheque. He submitted that she never replied to the legal notice and failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. He called alibi the weakest of pleas and said the appellant had placed documents on record to show that he had retired from KPS Finance. He relied on Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, among other decisions.
Advocate M. Sheik Abdullah, appearing for the respondent, argued that the complaint was barred by limitation. He said the respondent was a nurse on night duty at a hospital in Coimbatore on the date of the alleged loan, about four hours away by road. He also argued that her cheque had reached the appellant’s finance firm as security for a loan taken by her husband.
Court’s Findings
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. It held that when a notice is returned unclaimed, that date is the starting point for the 15-day period under Section 138. Here, the notice was returned unclaimed on April 12, 2007. The Court found that the complaint ought to have been filed on or before May 24, 2007, but it was filed only on May 31, 2007. No application to condone the delay was filed, as required under the proviso to Section 142(1).
The Court observed that the complaint was “filed belatedly without any application for condone delay. Therefore, the cognizance itself is bad in law.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya, the Court noted that condonation of delay must come before the act of taking cognizance. It held that “on this short ground alone, the present complaint ought to have failed.”
On the merits, the respondent’s husband testified that he borrowed ₹35,000 from KPS Finance and gave a cheque signed by his wife as security for that loan. The appellant’s witness claimed the husband had given his own cheques, but the Court noted that those cheques were never produced before the trial court. The Court held:
“When the defence has raised a probable defence that the cheques were issued only to secure the loan of D.W-2, then it is to be construed that the presumption which could be raised under Section 139 of the NI Act stands rebutted.”
The burden then shifted to the appellant to prove the loan. The Court found that “no evidence as to the mode of payment and the source of the said money was forthcoming on the side of the complainant.”
The Court also referred to Rajendran v. N. Radhakrishnan. That decision holds that an acquittal should be interfered with only if the appellate court’s findings are perverse, and that where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused should be taken.
Outcome
The High Court held that the first appellate court had rightly acquitted the respondent and that there was no scope for interference. It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal judgment of July 31, 2018.
Case Title: Soundararajan v. Saraswathi
Case No.: Crl. A(MD) No. 170 of 2019
Bench: Justice S. Karthikeyan
Date: 11.11.2026
