The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 01.02.2008 and issued a cheque bearing S. No. 716364, when the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for the reason "Insufficient Funds." Thereafter, statutory notice was sent by the complainant to the accused on 25.08.2008 and said postal cover was returned with an endorsement intimation delivered on 06.10.2008. Since the accused has not paid the amount mentioned in the statutory notice nor sent reply to the said notice. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, r/w Section 200 and 357 of Cr.P.C.

2. In order to prove the case of the complainant before the Magistrate, he himself was examined as PW-1 and five documents were marked on his behalf. The incriminating circumstances which put before the accused, he denied the evidence of complaint as false and he opted for examining witness on his behalf. On the side of defence two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked.

3. The learned Magistrate after completion of the trial, heard the case on either side and discussed elaborately and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as fine.

4. As against the said order dated 27.11.2012 made in STC No. 18/2012, the complainant preferred Crl. R.C. No. 32/2013 for enhancement of sentence.

5. On the other hand, feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner/accused has preferred an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl. A. No. 347/2012 in turn the learned Sessions Judge, made over the appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the arguments on either side, found that there is no merit in the appeal, the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and shifted the initial burden that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt, of course the presumption is rebuttable presumption. Whereas, the accused has not rebutted the statutory presumption. Therefore, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge made in Crl. A. No. 347/2012 dated 19.08.2013, the accused preferred the present revision in Crl. R.C. No. 1430/2013 before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the learned Additional District Judge has not passed any speaking order and Courts below failed to consider that the complainant has not proved the alleged loan transaction and borrowal of Rs. 1 lakh by the respondent. The complainant has not produced any documentary proof, the alleged transaction of Rs. 1 lakh was advanced to the accused on a particular date. The complaint has not proved the case in the manner known to law, the complainant has not produced any evidence showing that the cheque was issued only for legally enforceable liability. In the absence of any such documentary proof, showing loan transaction between the complainant and respondent, the judgment of the Courts below are perverse and both the Courts below failed to note that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court reported in P. Gnanambigai Vs. S. Krishnasamy and Another, (2011) 2 MLJ (Cri) 590, P. Eswaran Vs. J.A. Abdul Hameed, (2006) 5 CTC 296 and M.A. Nachimuthu Vs. N. Ravichandran, (2007) 2 MLJ (Cri) 1684.

9. The learned counsel f