The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that a cheque is deemed issued in discharge of debt unless the accused can prove otherwise, with liability established at the time of presentation.

ORDER :

1. Revision petitioner/accused assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act).

2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused as before the trial court.

3. Complainant Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd represented by its managing director filed the complaint stating that the accused who had business transaction with the complainant company, purchased goods from the complainant company on credit and in discharge of the said liability, accused issued Exts.P3, P4 and P5 cheques dated 20.5.2008 drawn on Canara Bank, Panampilly Nagar Branch, Ernakulam. Upon presentation of Exts.P3 to P5 cheques, the said cheques were dishonoured on 18.11.2008 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. In spite of receipt of Ext.P7 notice dated 5.12.2008, accused failed to make the payment covered by Exts.P3 to P5 cheques. Accused thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

4. Accused entered appearance and denied his liability to pay any amount. He contended that he issued Exts.P3 to P5 cheques by way of security. According to him, no amounts are due to the complainant as he had already effected payment of the goods supplied to him, and no amounts were due to the complainant.

5. Before the trial court, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the complainant company was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the accused, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.

6. After trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.260/2018 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.

8. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision petition contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective. It was contended by the accused/revision petitioner that Exts.P3 to P5 cheques were issued by way of security during the course of business transaction; that the complainant failed to discharge his initial burden to prove that Exts.P3 to P5 cheques were issued in discharge of any debt or liability.

9. The learned counsel for the accused relied on Ext.D1 and contended that in Ext.D1, there is no mention regarding Exts.P3 to P5 cheques. It was further contended that in the writ petition filed by the revision petitioner/accused, this Court had directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to conduct an enquiry and find out the actual amount due. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the accused, it has to be construed that Exts.P3 to P5 cheques were not supported by any consideration.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant supported the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have an