The judgment emphasized the requirements for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidentiary value of statutory presumptions, and the standard of proof for proving a defense.

1. This appeal is preferred as against the judgment dated 06.01.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed vide the order dated 05.05.2011 passed in C.C.No.2661 of 2010 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The case of the complainant is that he filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused alleging that the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the discharge of his legal liability dated 13.03.2010 drawn on Central Bank, Chennai. On presentation of the same on 13.03.2010, it was returned dishonour for the reason “insufficient funds” on 17.03.2010. It was communicated to the complainant with written memo. That this transaction, the complainant caused statutory notice dated 20.03.2010 and the same was duly received by the accused/respondent. After receipt of the same, the accused neither repaid the cheque amount nor issued any reply. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

3. The Trial Court, after furnishing the copies to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent examined himself D.W.1 as defense side witness and marked Ex.D1. The Trial Court after considering the evidence and materials available on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months, against which, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, after hearing on arguments of both the sides, reversed the judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused, as against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that P.W.1/complainant has proved the case against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused never denied the issuance of the cheque and signature of the cheque and as such, to presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proved that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt by the accused. Further, the accused did not deny the receipt of notice and did not issue any reply to rebut the presumption under Section 119 and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, he would contend that the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D1 cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence for proving the issuance of the cheque and another cheque during the year 2008 itself to one Kannan Finance. Ex.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of his liability of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and it was returned dishonoured for the reason that “funds insufficient”. As such, the complainant has established this case beyond any reasonable doubts and prayed for restoration of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

5. The case of the respondent/accused that Ex.P1 cheque was fabricated and concocted one and it was never issued for any discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 and thereby, rebutted the presumption under Section 119 and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant did not remember the date on which he paid the amount and he did not obtain any documents as a security of the amount which he paid to the respondent.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

7. From the evidence of complainant, it is seen t