The court emphasized the presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the requirement for the accused to disprove the existence of consideration for the cheque.

1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1940 of 2004, against the judgment made in C.A.No.358 of 2003, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.58 of 2000, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:-

The accused, in order to discharge the dues payable to the complainant, had issued a cheque dated 01.04.1999 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylapore Branch, for the sum of Rs.6,68,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment with his bankers on 15.09.1999, it was returned unpaid on 16.09.1999 with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 20.09.1999, which was received by the accused on 21.09.1999. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, four witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney, Ex.P2-cheque, Ex.P3-return memo, Ex.P4-copy of lawyer's notice, Ex.P5-certificate of posting of notice issued by postal authorities, Ex.P6-power of attorney granted to P.W.2, Ex.P7-statement of account of complainant, Ex.P8-power of attorney given to P.W.3 to adduce evidence, Ex.P9-copy of bank account statement of accused. On the side of the accused, no witness, no documents.

4. P.W.1, Seethapathi had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney holder of the complainant and had marked Ex.P1, the power of attorney given to him by complainant. P.W.1 adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P5.

5. P.W.2, Chandrasekar, had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney holder for the bank, viz., Punjab National Bank, Purusawalkam Branch, wherein he is employed, and had marked Ex.P6, the power of attorney letter. P.W.2 deposed that the complainant had a savings bank account in their branch in S/B account No.736 and that when the said cheque was deposited in their bank for collection on 16.09.1999, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "payment stopped by drawer". In support of his evidence, he had marked the bank account statement of complainant as Ex.P7.

6. P.W.3, Anjaneyalu, the Assistant Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylapore Branch had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney holder of his bank and had marked Ex.P8, the power of attorney letter. P.W.3 had deposed that the cheque leaf marked as Ex.P2 had been issued by their bank to the accused and that when the said cheque was presented for collection at their bank on 16.09.1999, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "payment stopped by drawer". In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P9, the copy of bank account statement of accused, on date of presentation of cheque for collection.

7. P.W.4, Anil agarwal had adduced evidence that he had given the power of attorney to P.W.1 to file the case. P.W.4 in his cross examination had stated that he is working as A.G.M. of caterpillar company and that P.W.1 is known to him for 12 years. He deposed that the accused is his father's friend and had stated that he had not lent any money to the accused and that only his father lent him the money. He stated that the accused had given him the said cheque for his admitted liability after the death of his father on 14.09.1997. He further stated that the pronote was given to him by the accused after death of his father.

8. It was argued on the side of t