Judgment:-The allegations contained in the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows -

1[a] In the month of December 2003, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs for his family expenses and undertook to repay the said sum with interest. To discharge his liability, he issued a cheque bearing No.947929 dated 25.5.2004 for Rs.2 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nanganallur Branch as part of payment.

1[b] As per the advice of the accused, the complainant deposited the cheque in his bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch, Chennai on 25.5.2004 for collection. But the same was returned dishounoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient" by means of a memo dated 27.5.2004 and the same was intimated to the complainant by his bank on 29.5.2004. Hence, the complainant sent a lawyer's notice on 1.6.2004 to the accused and the same was received by him on 5.6.2004. The accused sent reply to the notice on 7.6.2004. Since the accused did not come forward to discharge the liability, the complainant filed the private complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the court below.

2. After the complainant's evidence was over, the court below questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regards incriminating materials available against him in complainant's evidence. He denied complicity to the offences. He has stated that the cheque was obtained by the complainant by threatening through the police and that he borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- but he has to only repay Rs.1,20,000/-. He did not examine any witnesses. During the cross examination of PW1, he marked Exs.D1 to D4, the letter given by him addressed to the Inspector of Police, Palavanthangal Police Station, the notice sent by him to the complainant dt.13.03.2004, the postal acknowledgment card and the reply given by complainant on 16.04.2004.

3. After analyzing evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused by observing that Ex.D1 was obtained by complainant in the police station and hence the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted by him.

4. In the above said circumstances, the following points for consideration have arisen -

(1)Whether there is legally enforceable debt existing between the parties?

(2)Whether it is established that the cheque was obtained in the police station from the accused under pressure?

(3)Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

Point Nos.1 to 3 :-

5. The learned counsel Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran appearing for the appellant would contend that in as much as the respondent/accused has not proved the circumstances which he has set up in his defence by means of which it is seen that he has failed to rebut the statutory presumption, that there is no suppression of material facts in the complaint as alleged by the respondent side, that the court below has failed to see that the negotiable instrument was delivered to the complainant for adequate consideration and that valid grounds are available to set aside the order of acquittal by this Court.

6. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue on the converse that Ex.D1 to D4 would portray the real state of affairs which transpire between the parties and a careful scrutiny of the defence side exhibits coupled with the facts adduced by PW1 in his cross examination would vividly show that the cheque was extracted from the respondent in Palavanthangal Police Station which is evident from the contents of Ex.A1, that when the money transaction is of civil nature, there is no necessity for approaching the police for delivery of cheque, that there is no need for the respondent to give undertaking in Ex.D1 to the Inspector of Police, that he would arrange for payment towards the cheque, that the respondent has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document