The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and providing evidence to support claims related to the issuance and purpose of negotiable instruments.

M. V. MURALIDARAN, J.

1. This instant criminal Revision is directed against the order confirming the Judgment of Sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner by the Learned District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in C.A.No.70 of 2013 dated 16.10.2014, confirming the Judgment of the Learned Fast Track Court Magistrate Level II, Poonamalli made in C.C.No.16 of 2012 dated 13.08.2013 whereby the Revision Petitioner was held guilty for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that previously he acted as a power of attorney of the original complainant namely R.Bommi, who is the mother of the Respondent herein namely S. Prabhadevi.

3. The Revision Petitioner was entrusted as the power of attorney by said R.Bommi such that authorizing to sell her house property situated in Ramapuram in Chennai. Revision Petitioner was appointed as General Power of Attorney by a registered dated 18.07.2018 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet.

4. In pursuant to the above GPA, the revision Petitioner acted in good faith and sold the house property for sale consideration at Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only). Previously an undertaking was given by the Revision Petitioner in favour of the said Bommiammal to pay the sale consideration on its receipt from the vendee. Yet again two cheques were also issued by the Revision Petitioner as a security for the payment of the sale consideration.

5. This being the factum, the house property was sold for a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only) and the sale consideration was duly paid to the said Bommi. However, said Bommi with the fraudulent intention to extort money by projecting as if the sale consideration was not paid in full by the Revision Petitioner had presented the above said two cheques before the Bank for encashment. Since the said cheques were returned for want of fund by issuing the statutory notice the said Bommi filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the learned Fast Track Court Magistrate Level No.2, Poonamalli.

6. The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.16 of 2012 by the learned Magistrate. Pending trial said Bommi died and the present respondent herein namely S.Prabhadevi substituted on behalf of the deceased complainant. The learned Magistrate without appreciation of above facts held that the Revision Petitioner had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act thereby held the Revision Petitioner guilty of offence under Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) to the complainant. Aggrieved over the same the Revision Petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.70 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur. Misfortunately, the appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 13.08.2013, which is under challenge in this criminal revision.

7. I heard Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rathanavel, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

8. It is seen from the records that the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner herein was appointed as Power of Attorney Agent of R.Bommi to sell a house property in Ramavaram, Chennai. He was so authorized to sell the house property on behalf of R. Bommi and he was entrusted with duty to pay the sale consideration on receipt of the same from the purchaser.

9. While so on 17.10.2008 i.e., two months later to the execution of General power of attorney in favour of the Revision Petitioner, few unknown person started fencing the subject house property authorized for sale. On enquiry, the complainant found that the house property was