The failure to discharge the initial burden of proof and rebut the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to a reversal of the Trial Court's judgment.

The complainant is the appellant.

2. This Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 16.11.2015 in C.C.No.548 of 2013, on the file of the Fast Track Court-IV, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai - 600 001.

3. The appellant/complainant is a Company engaged in the business of trading and selling of Iron and Steel. The respondent is the Proprietor of 'M/s. Sarada Steels and Bearings Co.' He used to purchase goods for his Concern from the complainant on credit basis. He agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% for payment made after 10 days from the date of invoice.

4. After giving credit to payments made by the respondent for the goods supplied by the complainant under various invoices Rs.14,99,439/- remained due and payable by him. The respondent has paid Rs.3,00,000/- by means of Cheque bearing No.2163. Thereafter, on 08.08.2012, he paid Rs.7,00,000/- by means of Demand Draft. A total sum of Rs.4,99,439/- was due from the respondent.

5. The respondent issued the post-dated cheque [bearing No.001906 dated 29.11.2012 for Rs.4,99,439/-] in question for the discharge of the said liability. After issuing the cheque, he sent a notice alleging that the complainant along with certain persons visited his shop and forcibly obtained the post-dated cheque. A reply was sent denying all the averments of his notice. Thereafter, the cheque was presented for collection on 29.11.2012. It was returned with an endorsement payment stopped by the drawer . Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated 04.12.2012 calling upon the respondent to pay the cheque amount. As the respondent failed to make payment, he has filed the complaint. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined his Banker [P.W.2] and marked 17 documents [Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17].

6. The case of the respondent is that he has sold his property to the complainant in the name of Mrs.Geetha Rungta [D.W.2] wife of Vikas Rungta [D.W.1], one of the Directors of the Company and the sale price was fixed at Rs.21,60,000/-. However, the Sale Deed was executed for Rs.12,04,000/-. The complainant agreed to adjust the balance amount due under invoice No.1400/11-12 dated 24.11.2011 and pay the balance of the sale consideration of Rs.4,56,561/- to the respondent. However, on 29.10.2012, the complainant along with certain persons visited the respondent's shop and obtained a post-dated cheque for Rs.4,99,439 under threat. The respondent examined himself as D.W.3 and examined D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked 4 documents [Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4].

7. The Trial Court has held that the respondent has rebutted the presumptions drawn in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that, thereafter the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for the discharge of legally enforceable debt. The respondent was found not guilty. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant filed the present appeal after obtaining leave.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent admitted his liability of Rs.4,99,439/- and that, therefore the Trial Court ought to have convicted him. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments in “GOA PLAST (P) LTD. vs. CHICO URSULA D'SOUZA [(2004) 2 SCC 235], SHUBH SHANTI SERVICES LTD. vs. MANJULA S. AGARWALLA [AIR 2005 SC 2506], HITEN P. DALAL vs. BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE [AIR 2001 SC 3897], VIJAYAN vs. SADANANDAN, K. [2009 (3) CTC 786], K.N.BEENA vs. MUNIYAPPAN [2001 (4) CTC 382], RAMES vs. K.SUNDAR [2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 7 (Mad.)”.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent has raised probable defence and rebutted the presumptions drawn against him under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments in LAXMI DEYCHEM vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [(2012) 13 SCC 375], RANGAPPA vs. SRI MOHAN [(2010) 11 SCC 441], KUMAR EXPORTS vs. SHARMA CARPETS [(2009) 2 SCC 51