IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Appellant / Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent / Complainant

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER

SECTION 374 (3) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

1. APPELLANT :

A. Rajendran, aged about 52 years, son of Arumugam, residing at

No.132, Bhavathi Nagar, Panchalingapuram, Modakurichi Post, Erode Taluk.

The address for service of the appellant as above and care of

K. Panneerselvam, B.Com., B.L.,
En.No.799/2012
Advocate,
Erode
Cell : 96889-71413
2. RESPONDENT :

C. Palanisamy, aged about 53 years, son of Chinnappa gounder,

residing at No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),Karur Main Road, Erode Taluk.

The address for service of the respondent is as above.

3. The appellant begs to prefer this appeal against the judgment

passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erode in
S.T.C.No.114/2014, dated 09.04.2021, convicting the appellant / accused to
undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and also to pay the
compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The appellant filed a petition in CMP No.1627/2021 on 09.04.2021 to

suspend the sentence and the said petition was allowed and the sentence
was suspended till 10.05.2021 by the trial court.

The present appeal is filed against the conviction and judgment

passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Erode, for the
following among the other grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL :

i. The judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence

and all probabilities of the case.

ii. The trial court ought to have held that the respondent has not
proved the case.

iii. The appellant submits that the respondent was not having any
source of income to lend the huge amount to the appellant.

iv. The appellant submits that the PW1 Cross examination stated that

a. 2012k; fhyfl;lj;jpy; tptrhaj;jpd; %yk; tUkhdk; te;jJ vd;gij fhz;gpf;f

Mtzk; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;

b. Nfhopg;gz;iz itj;jpUe;jij fhz;gpf;f Mtzk; jhf;fy; nra;a KbAkh vd;W

Nfl;lhy; KbahJ.

c. vd;d Njitf;fhf vjphp Nfl;lhh; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L vd;Dila mwptpg;gpy;

nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.

d. mtruNjit vd;W Nfl;lhh;> vjphp vd;dplk; ve;j Njjpapy; gzk; Nfl;lhh;

vd;W vd;Dila mwptpg;G> Gfhhpy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsdh vd;W Nfl;lhy;
nrhy;ytpy;iy.

e. ve;j ,lj;jpy; itj;J vjphpf;F gzk; nfhLj;Njd; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L

nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpahf Qhgfk; ,y;iy.
 f. vd;Dila nry;Nghd; nek;gh; 9965959697 MFk;. thhp igdhd;]; fpU\;z
%h;j;jp vd;gthpd; nry;Nghd; nek;gh; 9842305866 vd;w vz;zpw;F fhy;
miog;G tpguq;fs; Fwpj;J nry;Nghd; epWtdj;jpy; ,Ue;J
ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F tutioj;Jg; ghh;j;jhy; cz;ik epiy njhpAk; vd;why; vdf;F
epiwa Ngh; gof;fk; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs; mth;fSld; ehd; Ngrp ,Uf;fyhk;.

g. thhp igdhd;]; fpU\;z%h;j;jpia xU rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;f vdf;F

Ml;Nrgiz ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.

h. ehd; gzk; nfhLj;jjhf nrhy;yg;gLk; fhyfl;lj;jpy; vjphp ve;j muR

Nghf;Ftuj;J fof gzpkidapy; gzpGHpe;J te;jhh; vd;W Nfl;lhy; <NuhL
gzpkidapy; ,Ue;jjhfr; nrhd;dhh;. ,e;j tpguk; vdf;F Neubahfj; njhpahJ
vd;why; rhpjhd;.

v. The appellant submits that the DW1 (Manager, Karur Vysya Bank)
Chief examination stated that

a. 29.10.2012k; Njjpad;W vq;fs; tq;fpapy; t#Yf;F jhf;fy;

nra;ag;gLk;NghJ jpU. godprhkp vd;gthpd; tq;fpf; fzf;fpy; &.86.90
igrh ,Ug;G ,Ue;jJ.

vi. The appellant submits that the trial court finding is against the
principles of enunciated law as it totally failed to consider the
defense established by the appellant and the defence was not at
all taken into account. The trial court has completely eschequed it
without assigning any reason what so ever.

vii. The appellant submits that the very foundation of the complainant
case and the charges leveled by the trial court are erroneous, the
complainant totally failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable
doubts which is essential factor in a criminal trial. The trial court
made a grave mistake in arriving at a decision wherein the
complainant totally failed to bring in their case in the form of
evidence and based its conclusion on a mere conjucture and
surmise without any legal proof.
viii. The trial court failed to see that the prosecution has not proved
the essential ingredient for an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act namely Legal liability on the part of the appellant
towards the respondent.

ix. The trial court failed to see that the appellant is found guilty on
the basis of the presumption U/s.118, 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act which is rebuttable one.

x. The trial court failed to see that the appellant proved his defence
by preponderance of the probabilities and successfully rebutted
presumption on the relevant provision of the negotiable
instrument act.

xi. It is basic principle of negotiable instruments act that once the

defence was able to establish probable defence thereby the case
once again shifts back to the complainant to disprove the case and
the burden is shifted to the complainant to clear the doubt raised
on the side of the defence and on this aspect the prosecution has
not able to adduced evidence to disprove the probable defense
and on that score alone the appellant is entitled to benefit of
doubt.

xii. The reasoning and conclusion of the trial court in its judgment are
erroneous and legally untenable.

xiii. The trial court failed to note that the complainant failed to prove
that the consideration was passed for the said case cheque, to
bring home the guilty of the accused under section 138 of the Act.
The respondent is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon
him that the cheque was given by the appellant in discharge of
there is no legal enforceable liability.

xiv. The appellant therefore prays that this Hon’ble court may be
pleased to allow the appeal and setaside the judgment, conviction
and sentence passed by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate Fast Track
Court No.I, Erode in S.T.C.No.114/2014 dated 09.04.2021 and
pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstance of the case and render justice.

Advocate for appellant.

 IN THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent /
Complainant

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF

OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 374(3)
OF CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Pre on : .05.2021

Encl :
Vakkalath :1
Judgment Copy :1
Process memo :1
Affidavit :1
Petition :1
---
Total :5
---

Address for service :

K. Panneerselvam, B.Com., B.L.,
En.No.799/2012
Advocate,
No.603, 2nd Floor, Senthil Complex,
Near KPK Petrol Bunk,
Perundurai Road, Erode - 638011
Cell : 96889-71413
 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Crl.M.P.No. OF 2021
Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Petitioner / Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 389 (1) OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE
1. PETITIONER / APPELLANT :

A. Rajendran, aged about 52 years, son of Arumugam, residing at

No.132, Bhavathi Nagar, Panchalingapuram, Modakurichi Post, Erode Taluk.

The address for service of the appellant as above and care of

K. Panneerselvam, B.Com., B.L.,
En.No.799/2012
Advocate, Erode
Cell : 96889-71413

2. RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT:

C. Palanisamy, aged about 53 years, son of Chinnappa gounder,

residing at No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),Karur Main Road, Erode Taluk.

The address for service of the respondent is as above

3. The petitioner / appellant begs to submit the she is preferring the appeal
against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court
No.I, Erode in S.T.C.No.114/2014, dated 09.04.2021, convicting the
appellant / accused to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and also
to pay the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner / appellant filed a petition in C.M.P. No.1627/2021 to

suspend the sentence on trial court on 09.04.2021 and the said petition was
allowed and the sentence was suspended till 10.05.2021.

The petitioner / appellant therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to suspend the sentence for the following among other grounds
the same namely:-

1. The petitioner is innocent and he was on bail during the trial of the
case.

2. The petitioner is a permanent resident and owns movable and

immovable properties and he will not abscond or run away.

3. The petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this

Hon’ble Court.

4. The petitioner was not filed any application either before this Hon’ble
Court or before Hon’ble High Court of Chennai previously.

5. The petitioner is prepared to furnish sufficient sureties to the

satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court for his due appearance.

6. Hence the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to
extend the time for producing sureties and pass suitable orders.

Therefore the petitioner / appellant most humbly pray that this

Hon’ble court may be pleased to suspend the sentence till the disposal of
the above appeal and pass such other and suitable orders and render
justice.

Advocate for petitioner / Appellant

 IN THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Crl.M.P.No. OF 2021
Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Petitioner /
Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent /
Respondent/
Complainant

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 389

(1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE

Pre on : .05.2021

Address for service :

K. Panneerselvam, B.Com., B.L.,
En.No.799/2012
No.603, 2nd Floor, Senthil Complex,
Near KPK Petrol Bunk,
Perundurai Road, Erode - 638011
Cell : 96889-71413
 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Crl.M.P.No. OF 2021
Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Petitioner / Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent / Respondent /
Complainant

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

I, A. Rajendran, aged about 52 years, son of Arumugam, residing at

No.132, Bhavathi Nagar, Panchalingapuram, Modakurichi Post, Erode Taluk
do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows :-

1. I am the petitioner / appellant herein and the accused in the above

S.T.C.No.114/2014, the respondent has registered a case against me
for an offence under section 138 r/w 142 Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court
No.I, Erode in S.T.C.No.114/2014. After the trial I was convicted
U/s.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo three
months Simple Imprisonment and also to pay the compensation of
Rs.1,30,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. I submit that I was on bail during the course of trial.

 4. I submit that, I have engaged Thiru.K. Pannerselvam, B.Com.,
B.L., Advocate, Erode to file this application for suspense of sentence
on ourself.

5. I submit that I have not filed any application like this nature before
any court of law or before Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Madras.

6. Therefore I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an

order to suspend the sentence till the disposal of the appeal and pass
such other suitable orders and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me at Erode on .05.2021

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Crl.M.P.No. OF 2021
Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Petitioner /
Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent /
Respondent/
Complainant

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE

PETITIONER
 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Appellant / Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent / Complainant

PROCESS MEMO FILED BY THE APPELLANTS / ACCUSED

The appellant humbly begs to submit that the above said appeal,
notice to the respondent process memo, RPAD court fee Rs.25.00 has
been paid the appellant. This Hon’ble Court accepts the same and
suitable orders may be passed.

Advocate for Appellant / petitioner / accused

Respondent address :
C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk
 IN THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE OF ERODE

Criminal Appeal No. OF 2021

A. Rajendran, (M/52)
S/o. Arumugam,
No.132, Bhavathi Nagar,
Panchalingapuram,
Modakurichi Post,
Erode Taluk - Appellant /
Accused

Vs

C. Palanisamy, (M/53)
S/o. Chinnappa gounder,
No.73, Ganapathipalayam, (Po),
Karur Main Road,
Erode Taluk. - Respondent /
Complainant

PROCESS MEMO FILED BY THE

APPELLANTS / ACCUSED

Pre on : .05.2021

Address for service :

K. Panneerselvam, B.Com., B.L.,
En.No.799/2012
Advocate,
No.603, 2nd Floor, Senthil Complex,
Near KPK Petrol Bunk,
Perundurai Road, Erode - 638011
Cell : 96889-71413