IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.12.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.A.No.349 of 2004 Thamizharasi .. Appellant/Complainant versus K.Arjunan .. Respondent/Accused PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.III], Namakkal, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2002 against the respondent / accused made in C.C.No.261 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr.P.Palaninathan for Mr.A.Sasidharan For Respondent : Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the order of acquittal and the appellant is the complainant. He preferred a private complaint in C.C.No.261 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, against the respondent herein alleging that the respondent had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/-. Challenging the same, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.255 of 2002 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.III], Namakkal. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 09.01.2004 set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and acquitted the respondent. Challenging the said acquittal, the appellant/ complainant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.12.1999 promising to repay the same. When the appellant demanded the amount, the respondent issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on 27.12.1999 at the Bank of Baroda branch at Namakkal. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured and the same was returned to the appellant on 14.06.2000. Ex.P.2 is the memo issued by the Bank of Baroda and Ex.P.3 is the return memo issued by the State Bank (i.e.) the Bank of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant issued a legal notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 26.06.2000 under Ex.P.4. But the said notice was returned by the postal authorities unserved as the address found was not correct. Thereafter, the appellant issued yet another notice on 08.07.2000 under Ex.P.7 to the respondent. The same was acknowledged by the respondent. But he did not comply with the said notice. Therefore, the appellant preferred a private complaint. 3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the appellant / complainant, she examined herself as P.W.1 and the Bank officials were also examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Nine documents were exhibited on her side. On the side of the respondent / accused, the postman of Namakkal was examined as D.W.1. Two documents were also exhibited on the defence side. 4. After an elaborate discussion, this Court dismissed the appeal on 11.03.2011, against which, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1786 of 2011 [S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7105 of 2011] before the Honourable Apex Court. By an order dated 13.11.2017, the Honourable Apex Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though there are several arguments available to the respondent, however in order to give quietus to this matter, the respondent wants to settle the matter with the appellant. Accordingly, he produced a Demand Draft before this Court for the entire cheque amount and the same is received by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions would submit that, he received the Demand Draft on behalf of the appellant. He would further submit that he has no objection to close the appeal as infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. KANCHAN MEHTA reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560 (Before Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday U Lalit.JJ) in Criminal Appeal No.1731 of 2017, wherein it has held as follows: “18.1 Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on the accused in of presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus, read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. 18.2.The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. 18.3.Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.” 8. Considering the fact that the respondent has come forward to settle the matter with the appellant, for which, he produced a Demand Draft before this Court for the entire cheque amount in this Criminal Appeal in C.C.No.261 of 2000 and hence, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. 2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No.III], Namakkal. 3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. 4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 5.The Section Officer, Criminal Section High Court of Madras, Chennai. Crl.A.No.349 of 2004 KS(CO) CSL/23.01.2019