The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof to establish a legally enforceable debt lies with the complainant. The judgment emphasized the need for the complainant to prove the debt and the admissibility of evidence, and clarified the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.87 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The Trial Court, convicted the petitioner/accused and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of compensation amount, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri. The lower appellate Court dismissed the criminal appeal by confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial Court. Now, Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant is as follows:-

The petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- as hand loan from the complainant for his family expenses and for developing his business. In order to discharge the above said loan amount, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque, bearing No.515386 for Rs.9,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Dharmapuri Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection with his bank, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch on 26.03.2005 and the same was returned due to insufficiency funds in the petitioner's account. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant issued a legal notice on 08.10.2005 and the petitioner has received the same, but he failed to comply with the notice and did not pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and filed the above private complaint. In order to prove his case, the respondent/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked four documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque issued by the petitioner. Ex.P2 is the memo issued by the State Bank of India, Dharmapuri. Ex.P3 is the Statutory notice issued by the complainant and Ex.P4 is the acknowledgment card.

3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the petitioner/accused, he denied the same as false and the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and he has marked 8 documents to prove his defence. According to the petitioner/accused, the respondent/complainant is running a finance company in the name of Sri Krishna Finance. In the year, 2002, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the respondent. At that time, he has given 5 blank cheques to the respondent. Thereafter, he repaid the above loan amount with interest to the tune of Rs.7,28,000/-. On 16.05.2003 the respondent withdraw a sum of Rs.48,000/- from the petitioner's Bank account and on 08.07.2003 another sum of Rs.22,000/- was withdrawn from the petitioner's account through a cheque. Thereafter, on 22.05.2004, the petitioner mortgaged his house property in Bank of India, Dharmapuri at the instigation of the respondent/complainant and at that time, he opened an account in Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch and given 20 blank cheques to the respondent and using the same, the respondent withdraw a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- in the name of one A. Murugan and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.05.2004 in the name of one K. Sankar. Subsequently, using the cheque given by the petitioner in the year 2002, the present complaint has been filed. Apart from that since the respondent has demanded more interest, the petitioner has given a complaint against the respondent herein before the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri on 30.11.2007 and based on that complaint, a crime was registered against the respondent for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

4. In order to prove his case, the petitioner marked the complaint given by him against the respondent as Ex.D1 a