The accused's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act led to the confirmation of the conviction.

1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.58 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai and the said private complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant seeking prosecution for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 30.09.2009, has found her guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- and also cost of Rs.10,000/-, aggregating to a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. The accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and the lower appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 08.10.2012, has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this revision.

2. The facts narrated in brief necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows;

It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the revision petitioner/accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.10.2007 by way of loan and at the time of receiving loan, she has received a cheque dated 10.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, drawn in Indian Bank, Okkur Branch (Ex.P1). The said cheque was presented for collection by the complainant in a bank viz., Ramnad District Co-operative Bank, Paramakudi and it was dishonoured by the said bank on 14.11.2007 (vide Ex.P2). The complainant issued a statutory notice under Ex.P3 and it was returned with an endorsement "not claimed" (Ex.P4). Since the revision petitioner/accused did not comply with the terms of Ex.P3 - statutory notice, the respondent/complainant has filed the said complaint.

3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and examined her husband Mr.Raju as PW2 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against her in the evidences tendered by the complainant and she denied it as false. On the side of the accused, she examined herself as DW1 and no document was marked.

4. The trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. The appeal preferred by her also ended in dismissal and hence this revision.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner/accused therein had filed Crl.M.P.No.1626 of 2011 for reception of additional documents and the respondent/complainant had also filed Crl.M.P.No.1792 of 2011 for reception of additional documents and both the petitions came to be allowed and additional documents came to be marked as Exs.D1 to D5 and P7 respectively. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that the father-in-law of the respondent/ complainant viz., Madasamy has filed a suit in O.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the District Court of Ramnad against her husband for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the cheque given to the father-in-law of the respondent/complainant has been misused and by utilizing the service of the daughter-in-law, the present false complaint came to be lodged and it is in fact amount to double claim on the part of the father-in-law of the respondent /complainant.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused that the impugned cheque in question is not at all supported by any consideration and therefore any amount due and payable under the cheque cannot be termed as legally enforceable debt and the same has been completely overlooked by the lower appellate Court, ins