1. The instant Criminal Revision Case is preferred as against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2015 dated 03.06.2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur in confirming the judgment of conviction passed in Summary Trail Case in STC. No. 128 of 2014 dated 29.01.2015 on the file of the learned Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Ambathur. Further, the Revision Petitioner is an accused in a case initiated by the Respondent under section 138 N.I. Act. As the revision petitioner herein pleaded not guilty during the trial, he was ordered to face the summary trial.

2. The case of complaint is that on 10.04.2010, the revision Petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by executing an unregistered deed of mortgage. However, when the amount was asked to repay, the Revision Petitioner did not repay the amount, instead he entrusted a cheque bearing No. 294541 dated 15.05.2011 (ICICI Bank) for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/complainant. Thereafter at the time stipulated by the accused, the cheque was presented on 06.06.2011, but the same was returned as “Funds Insufficient” on 07.07.2011. Subsequently, when the complainant informed about the return of the cheque and demanded payment, but the Revision Petitioner instructed the complainant to present the cheque once again for collection. Accordingly, cheque was presented for collection on 10.08.2011, but the same was returned as “Funds Insufficient” as per the memorandum of the bank dated 11.08.2011. Thereafter the complainant caused a legal notice and filed the complaint under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the same Act before the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Level) Ambathur in S.T.C.No.128 of 2014.

3. In the conclusion of the trial, the Revision Petitioner/Complainant was found guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was ordered to undergo six months simple imprisonment and was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- compensation as per the judgment dated 29.01.2015. Against the said order of conviction, the Revision Petitioner/Accused filed an appeal before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.A.No.9 of 2015, but the same was dismissed on 03.06.2016 by confirming the Judgment of the learned trial court.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned appellate court and challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence against him, the present revision is preferred by the Revision Petitioner before this court.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the averments made in the complaint that the cheque had been presented on 06.06.2011 and the same had been returned, were not proved by the Respondent/Complaint by producing documentary evidence. Further, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also contended that the learned trial court and the learned appellate courts have convicted the petitioner only on the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act as if the cheque has been issued for legally enforceable debt. But, the courts below have failed to consider the legal proposition that mere failure to send reply notice will not take away the right of the party to contest the case. Hence, the case wherein it may be true that the accused admitted the issuance of cheque such a statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is involved to the effect that the cheque in question is issued in discharge of the liability either in whole or in part. Further, to strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Crl.A.No.1263 of 2003 dated 19.01.2016 and the relevant legal proposition is extracted as follows:

It is well known principle of law that as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheques in question should be given in