IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI.

Crl. Appeal No. of 2024

in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai]

Debesh Bharathi,
S/o. Rajan Bharathi,
72, Savadi Street,
VTC Korattur Post, Ambathur,
Thiruvallur District – 600 080.
Presently came down
336, 1st Floor,
Railway Station Road,
Korattur,
Chennai – 600 080. … Appellant/ Accused
-VS-
Shruthi Nirmal,
S/o. D. Pugazhenthi,
137/77-B, 32nd Cross Street,
T.P. Chatram,
Chennai – 600 030. … Respondent/Complainant

HUMBLE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED ON

BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPELLANT/ ACCUSED
U/s. 374 OF Cr.P.C. AND MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
The address for service of all notices and processes on the
Appellant is the same as stated above and that of his
counsel M/s. S. Venkatravi, B.A.,LL.B., D. Venkatesan,
M.Phil.,B.L., D.J.Shahith Ahamed, B.A.,LL.B., (Hons.),
K.Madhumitha, B.A.,LL.B., (Hons.), having office at Old No. 116,
Room No. 2, 1st Floor, SKPD Building, Angappan Naicken Street,
Parrys Corner, Chennai – 600 001.

The address for service of all processes and notices is that of

the Respondent/Complainant as stated above.
 /2/

1) It is submitted that the above named Respondent/

Complainant has filed a complaint under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, against the Appellant/Accused
before the Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai.

2) The Respondent/Complainant has filed a case against

the Appellant/Accused alleging that the Complainant and the
Appellant are well acquainted with each other and family friends.
In the month of November 2021 the Appellant had approached
the Complainant and told that the Appellant is running a
business in the name and style of DEB Enterprises Courier
Business and the Appellant/Accused has borrowed a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant on various dates from the
month of November 2021 to September 2022 for the purpose of
develop his business. On repeated demands made by the
Complainant, the Accused has issued a postdated Cheque No.
010206 (Ex.P.1) and 010207 (Ex.P.3) each for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-, totally Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Anna
Nagar Branch, Chennai, dated on 30-10-2022. The Complainant
has presented the cheques for collection in State Bank of India,
C.T.S. Shenoy Nagar Branch, Chennai, and the same was
dishonoured as Funds Insufficient on 13-12-2022. The
Complainant has issued a statutory notice to the accused dated
on 15-12-2022. On receipt of the statutory notice the Appellant
did not repay the cheque amount. Hence, the Complainant has
been filed this complaint.

3) The trial court examines P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.6 – 6 exhibits.
 /3/

4) The Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,

Chennai, has convicted the Appellant/Accused under section 138
of N.I. Act as per Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (Three) months and as per
Section 357(3) the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to
the Complainant in default undergo shall Simple Imprisonment of
15 (Fifteen) days on the date of judgement 29-02-2024.

5) The above named Appellant/Accused being aggrieved

with the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai the Appellant begs
prefer on Appeal before this Honourable Court.

GROUNDS

i) That the judgment passed by the Learned 25th Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is contrary to law, weight of
evidence and all probabilities of this case.

ii) The trial judge erred in convicting the Appellant/Accused

herein by misconceived the evidence of the Appellant and
other circumstances.

iii) The Lower Court failed to understand the crutches of the

case of the Appellant/Accused and thereby allowing the
complaint in favour of the Respondent/Complainant.

iv) The Lower Court failed to consider the rebuttable by the

Appellant by way of oral and documentary evidence in
support of his case.
 /4/
v) That the trial court has failed to consider that the intention
of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is not only to protect
the honest lender and to punish the dishonest evaders, but
also to protect the honest drawers from the malicious
prosecution institute by the holders of the cheques by
misusing the same.

vi) The Trial Court has failed to note that the Complainant did
not mentioned the specific date and place of borrowed
money in his Legal Notice, Complaint and Proof Affidavit.

vii) The Trial Court ought to have considered that the disputed
cheque amount is huge a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the
source of income of the Complainant has not been proved by
the Complainant.

viii) The Trial Court has failed to note that the Ex.P.1 and
E.X.P.3 Cheques stands in the name of D.E.B. Enterprises.
It is also not noted that the Complainant neither sent
statutory legal notice to them nor included in their name in
his complaint.

ix) The Trial Court has failed to note that Ex.P.6 – Statutory
Notice has not received by the Appellant/Accused. So, as
per 138(b) of N.I. Act the statutory legal notice has not
served the Appellant/Accused. It is ought to note that the
Appellant/Accused is a College Student.

x) It is submitted that due to the ill-health of the Appellant/

Accused’s Counsel, he unable to Cross Examine the
Respondent/Complainant on 03-10-2023. The Counsel has
also not gets the instructions from the Appellant/Accused.
 /5/

It is unfortunate that the trial court had given a verdict

without any valid Cross-Examination by the defence. The
Catena of Apex High Court decisions clearly observe that
without Cross Examination the Accused cannot be sent
back to trial.

xi) It is just and necessary to consider the plea of the

Appellant/Accused and the de-novo should be ordered in
order to safeguard the natural justice guaranteed under our
constitution.

xii) The Appellant/Accused reserves his right to file additional

grounds of appeal at later stage.

6) It is submitted that on the pronounces date of the

judgement, due to affected by ill-health the Appellant/Accused
was not able to attend the court. Hence, the Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has issued a NBW
against the Appellant/Accused.

Wherefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court may

pleased to take this appeal on file, call for the records from the
Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in S.T.C
No. 354/2023 and hear the counsel for the Appellant and set
aside the judgement of the trial court against this Appellant/
Accused and allow this appeal and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai, this the 28th day of March 2024.

Counsel for Appellant/

Accused
IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI.

Cr.M.P. No. /2024

in
Crl. Appeal No. /2024
in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai ]

Debesh Bharathi,
S/o. Rajan Bharathi,
72, Savadi Street,
VTC Korattur Post, Ambathur,
Thiruvallur District – 600 080.
Presently came down
336, 1st Floor,
Railway Station Road,
Korattur, Chennai – 600 080. … Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
-VS-
Shruthi Nirmal,
S/o. D. Pugazhenthi,
137/77-B, 32nd Cross Street,
T.P. Chatram,
Chennai – 600 030. … Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
AFFIDAVIT
I, Debesh Bharathi, Son of Rajan Bharathi, Hindu, aged
about ….. years and residing at Door No. 72, Savadi Street, VTC
Korattur Post, Ambathur, Thiruvallur District – 600 080,
Presently came down Door No. 336, 1st Floor, Railway Station
Road, Korattur, Chennai – 600 080, do hereby solemnly affirmed
and sincerely states as follows:-

1) I most respectfully submit that I am the petitioner

herein and Appellant/Accused in the above case and I am
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
 /2/
2) The Respondent/Complainant has filed a case against
me alleging that I and the Complainant are well acquainted with
each other and family friends. In the month of November 2021 I
had approached the Complainant and told that I am running a
business in the name and style of DEB Enterprises Courier
Business and I have borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the
Complainant on various dates from the month of November 2021
to September 2022 for the purpose of develop my business. On
repeated demands made by the Complainant, I have issued a
postdated Cheque No. 010206 (Ex.P.1) and 010207 (Ex.P.3) each
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, totally Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on IDBI
Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai, dated on 30-10-2022. The
Complainant has presented the cheques for collection in State
Bank of India, C.T.S. Shenoy Nagar Branch, Chennai, and the
same was dishonoured as Funds Insufficient on 13-12-2022. The
Complainant has issued a statutory notice to me, dated on
15-12-2022. On receipt of the statutory notice I did not repay the
cheque amount. Hence, the Complainant has been filed this
complaint.

3) The Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,

Chennai, has convicted the Appellant/Accused under section 138
of N.I. Act as per Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (Three) months and as per
Section 357(3) the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to
the Complainant in default undergo shall Simple Imprisonment of
15 (Fifteen) days on the date of judgement 29-02-2024.

4) I humbly submit that the judgment passed by the

Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is contrary
to law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of this case.
 /3/
5) I submit that the trial judge erred in convicting me by
misconceived the evidence of me and other circumstances.

6) The Lower Court failed to understand the crutches of

the case of me and thereby allowing the complaint in favour of the
Respondent/Complainant.

7) I further submit that the Lower Court has failed to

consider the rebuttable by me by way of oral and documentary
evidence in support of her case.

8) I humbly submit that the trial court has failed to

consider that the intention of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
is not only to protect the honest lender and to punish the
dishonest evaders, but also to protect the honest drawers from
the malicious prosecution institute by the holders of the cheque
by misusing the same.

9) I submit that the Trial Court has failed to note that the
Complainant did not mentioned the specific date and place of
borrowed money in the Complainant’s Legal Notice, Complaint
and Proof Affidavit.

10) The Trial Court ought to have considered that the

disputed cheque amount is huge a sum of Rs.2,00,00/-, but the
source of income of the Complainant has not been proved by the
Complainant.

11) I further submit that the Trial Court has failed to note
that the Ex.P.1 and E.X.P.3 Cheques stands in the name of
D.E.B. Enterprises. It is also not noted that the Complainant
neither sent statutory legal notice to them nor included in their
name in his complaint.
 /4/
12) I furthermore submit that the trial Court has failed to
note that Ex.P.6 – Statutory Notice has not received by me. So, as
per 138(b) of N.I. Act the statutory legal notice has not served me.
It is ought to note that I am a College Student.

13) It is submitted that due to the ill-health of my

Counsel, he unable to Cross Examine the Respondent/
Complainant on 03-10-2023. The Counsel has also not gets the
instructions from me. It is unfortunate that the trial court had
given a verdict without any valid Cross-Examination by the
defence. The Catena of Apex High Court decisions clearly observe
that without Cross Examination the Accused cannot be sent back
to trial.

14) It is just and necessary to consider the plea of my side

and the de-novo should be ordered in order to safeguard the
natural justice guaranteed under our constitution.

15) It is submitted that I am having good case in the

appeal, however the learned Trial Court has not considered the
evidence in its perspective.

16) It is submitted that on the pronounces date of the

judgement, due to affected by ill-health I could not able to attend
the court. Hence, the Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai, has issued a NBW against me.

17) I further submitted that I am having permanent

residence. Further in any event I would not jump out bail, if this
Honourable Court orders the same and I would co-operate for the
disposal of this appeal.

/5/
 19) It is further submitted that several virtual aspects
have not been considered by the trial judge despite they were
brought to the notice of the trial judge. I have never misused the
liberty during the trial. I will not abscond and I prepared to offer
sufficient sureties.

20) I humbly submit that the learned trial court has not
given its finding out of the evidence available, but the base on
surmise, the findings are given.

21) I further submit that I have filed an appeal before this

Honourable Court and the grounds of the same may kindly be
read as part and parcel of the appeal petition.

For the reasons stated above, I most respectfully prayed that

this Honourable Court may be graciously pleased to suspend the
execution of the sentence imposed on me in S.T.C No. 354/2023,
dated: 29-02-2024 on the file of the Learned 25th Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, till the disposal of the appeal and
thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and sincerely

stated and signed his name before Petitioner/Appellant/
me on this the 28-03-2024 Accused
at Chennai.

ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI.
Cr.M.P. No. /2024
in
Crl. Appeal No. /2024
in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai]
Debesh Bharathi,
S/o. Rajan Bharathi,
72, Savadi Street,
VTC Korattur Post, Ambathur,
Thiruvallur District – 600 080.
Presently came down
336, 1st Floor,
Railway Station Road,
Korattur, Chennai – 600 080. … Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
-VS-
Shruthi Nirmal,
S/o. D. Pugazhenthi,
137/77-B, 32nd Cross Street,
T.P. Chatram,
Chennai – 600 030. … Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
HUMBLE PETITION FILED FOR SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
U/s. 389 (1) OF Cr.P.C.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be
graciously pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence
imposed on the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused in S.T.C. No.
354/2023, dated: 29-02-2024 on the file of the Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, till the disposal of the
appeal and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai, this the 28th day of March 2024

Counsel for Petitioner/

Appellant/Accused
 IN THE COURT OF THE
HON’BLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHENNAI.

C.A. No. of 2024

in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai]

HUMBLE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE
ABOVE NAMED APPELLANT/
ACCUSED U/s. 374 OF Cr.P.C.

Appellant/Accused
Debesh Bharathi

ADVOCATES
M/s. S. Venkatravi,B.A.,LL.B.,
D. Venkatesan, M.Phil.,B.L.,
D.J. Shahith Ahamed
K. Madhumitha

Respondent/Complainant
Shruthi Nirmal
 IN THE COURT OF THE
HON’BLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHENNAI.

Cr.M.P. No. /2024

in
Crl. Appeal No. /2024
in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai]

AFFIDAVIT

Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Debesh Bharathi

ADVOCATES
M/s. S. Venkatravi,B.A.,LL.B.,
D. Venkatesan, M.Phil.,B.L.,
D.J. Shahith Ahamed
K. Madhumitha

Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Shruthi Nirmal
 IN THE COURT OF THE
HON’BLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHENNAI.
Cr.M.P. No. /2024
in
Crl. Appeal No. /2024
in
S.T.C. No. 354 of 2023
[On the file of Learned 25th
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai]

HUMBLE PETITION FILED FOR

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE BY
THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/
ACCUSED U/s. 389(1) OF Cr.P.C.

Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Debesh Bharathi

ADVOCATES
M/s. S. Venkatravi,B.A.,LL.B.,
D. Venkatesan, M.Phil.,B.L.,
D.J. Shahith Ahamed
K. Madhumitha

Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Shruthi Nirmal