Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes that a cheque is issued for the discharge of a debt, placing the burden of proof on the drawer to show otherwise.

1. The petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case was prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, in S.T.C.No.2406 of 2007 instituted on the complaint of the respondent herein for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent/ complainant, the revision petitioner issued two cheques bearing Cheque Nos.0506051 and 0506052 for Rs.25,000/- each, drawn on 10.01.2007 and 10.02.2007 respectively, for the discharge of a debt owed by the revision petitioner towards the respondent. It was contended therein that when the cheques were presented for collection, they were returned as there was no sufficient funds for the payment of the amount covered by the cheques and no arrangements had been made by the petitioner herein with his banker for honouring the cheques upto the amounts for which the cheques had been issued; that the said dishonour of the cheuqes was intimated to the petitioner by a statutory notice and that the petitioner herein failed to make arrangements for the payment of the amount covered by the cheques within the time allowed by the statute. The complaint was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that those cheques were issued as security for repayment of the loan besides execution of promissory notes; that even after the discharge of the debts, the cheques were not returned by the respondent and that those cheques were used for the purpose of prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, who took it on file as S.T.C. No.2406 of 2007, conducted a trial in which the respondent figured as the sole witness on the side of the complainant, whereas one Ramaraj figured as the sole witness on the side of the petitioner herein (accused). Thirteen documents were marked on the side of the complainant, whereas no document was marked on the side of the accused (revision petitioner). The learned Judicial Magistrate, on appreciation of evidence adduced on both sides, came to the conclusion that the complaint allegations stood proved, held the revision petitioner to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The said judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, dated 24.03.2008 was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC -2, Tirunelveli, in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2008. The learned Appellate Judge also, on a re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and also the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The legality of the said judgment of the learned Appellate Judge, dated 24.04.2009, is questioned before this Court in the present revision.

4. Arguments advanced by Mr. H. Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. S. Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The copies of the judgments of the Courts below and the materials available on record are also perused.

5. The present revision has been filed by the accused against the judgment of the appellate Court confirming the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also the punishment imposed by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the dishonoured cheques dated 10.01.2007 and 10.02.2007 bearing Cheque Nos.0506051 and 0506052 respectively, drawn for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, were the cheques issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. It is also not in dispute that the cheques were drawn on an account maintained by the revision petitioner with his banker. It is also not in dispute that the cheques we