The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has filed the present revision in Crl. R.C. No. 240 of 2005 against the judgment passed in C.A. No. 305 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, dated 4.2.2005, modifying the judgment passed in C.C. No. 4 of 2000, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet, dated, 5.7.2004.

2. The complainant’s case is as follows:

The complainant is the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. TN L 6436 and trailer bearing chassis No. 1414 of 1995. The accused had met the complainant at Moonar and had expressed his desire to purchase the trailer alone. The complainant had agreed to sell the trailer for Rs. 55,000/-. As the accused did not have spot cash, he issued a cheque dated 5.2.1997, drawn on Federal Bank, Moonar bearing serial No. SBA 526004 for the sum of Rs. 55,000/-. The complainant deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., Bank of Baroda, Pedambampatti. However, the cheque returned on 8.5.1997 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and the return memo was received by the complainant on 20.5.1997. The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice, dated 22.5.1997 to the accused which was received by the accused on 28.5.1997. As the accused has not paid the said amount even after receipt of notice, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet. As the accused had pleaded not guilty before the trial Court, enquiry was conducted.

3. On the complainant’s side, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-6 viz., Exhibit P-1-cheque given by the accused dated 5.2.1997; Exhibit P-2-return memo dated 8.5.1997; Exhibit P-3-memo given by the bank to the complainant dated 20.5.1997; Exhibit P-4-lawyer’s notice dated 22.5.1997; Exhibit P-5-acknowledgment card dated 28.5.1997 and Exhibit P-6-bank account statement of accused.

4. P.W.1, the complainant herein adduced evidence that he got acquainted with the accused during the course of letting out his tractor for rent; that he was the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. TN L 6436 and trailer bearing chassis No. 1414 of 1995; that while he had proceeded to Moonar in his tractor, the accused had expressed his intention of buying his trailer; that they had negotiated the price and he had agreed to sell the trailer to him for Rs. 55,000/-; that the accused had given a cheque drawn on Federal Bank, Moonar for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- (Exhibit P-1); that he had deposited the said cheque with his bankers viz., Canara Bank, Pedambampatti; that it was returned on 8.5.1997 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused; that he was informed about the return of cheque through telegram dated 20.5.1997, sent by his bank; that he had sent a lawyer’s notice to the accused on 22.5.1997 and that the same had been received by the accused on 28.5.1997, (Exhibit P-5); that the accused had neither paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice; that he had subsequently filed the complaint before the trial Court. P.W.2.-Nobilvar Singh, the Manager of Federal Bank, Moonar adduced evidence that the accused had an account in their bank; that the bank account number of the accused is 4385; that the said cheque (Exhibit P-1) had been given by them to the accused; that on 8.5.1997, when the said cheque came for clearance to their bank, it was returned due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused; that the accused had a balance of only Rs. 328.90 in his account; and in support of his evidence had marked Exhibit P-6, the bank statement of accused.

5. On the respondent’s side, five witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exhibits R-1 and R-2 viz., Exhibit R-1-identity card of A.I.T.U.C; Exhibit R-2-the xerox copy of salary register, wherein the thumb impression of the accused has been shown.

6. R.W.1-Ayyappan, the accused herein, had adduced evidence that he is residing at Valpara