P. Velmurugan, J.

The Revision has been filed to set aside the order of acquittal dated 27.09.2013 made in C.A.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem reversing the judgment dated 02.02.2012 made in STC No.737 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari.

2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,96,000/- for the management of Amala Matriculation School on 23.03.2008, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on 23.04.2008, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 30.05.2008, a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- on 02.06.2008, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 07.06.2008 and further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 09.06.2008, totally a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on the said dates and agreed to repay the said amount within 3 months. When the appellant approached the respondent and demanded the said sum on 12.09.2008, the respondent issued a post dated cheque dated 12.12.2008 of Indian Overseas Bank, Trichengode Branch bearing cheque No.602402 for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. When the appellant presented the said cheque for collection on 24.12.2008 in his bank account (i.e.,) Lakshmi Vilas Bank, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement insufficient fund on 27.12.2008. Hence, the appellant issued a legal notice on 09.01.2009 and the said notice was received by the respondent on 15.09.2009. After receiving the notice, the respondent neither sent a reply nor repaid the amount mentioned in the notice. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after completing the legal formalities and after enquiry, found the respondent guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. Aggrieved against the order of conviction, the respondent/accused filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Salem in turn made over the case to II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.19/2012. After hearing the arguments on either side and perusing the materials placed before the appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the respondent.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the said reversal judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.09.2013, the complainant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the execution of cheque was admitted and the signature found in the cheque also is admitted. Therefore, once respondent/accused admitted the execution of the cheque, it is a statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt or liability. It is for the accused to rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque was not issued for the legally enforceable debt or liability and further after receiving the statutory notice issued by the appellant, the respondent neither chosen to give any reply nor paid the amount demanded in the statutory notice. Even he has not sent any reply, the defence taken by him is only an after thought. Once the signature and execution of cheque is admitted, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. In this case the accused has not rebutted the presumption. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the evidence let in by the appellant/complainant and accepted the case of the appellant and convicted the respondent/accused. Whereas, the II Additional District Judge failed to consider the legal presumption that the execution of the cheque was admitted by the respondent herein and the legal presumption is in favour of the complainant that the appellant/complainant has proved the initial burden, the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt or liability and further the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the respondent/accused has not rebutted the legal presumption