ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode in CA.No.133 of 2016 which was filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Fast Track Judge I, Erode.

2. The respondent as a complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that on 28.09.2014, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him and promised to repay the amount on 29.10.2014. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs drawn on Karnataka Branch, Gandhiji Road, Erode for discharging his liability. The respondent presented the cheque for collection on 06.11.2014 through State Bank of India, Erode Branch. The cheque was returned as “Funds insufficient” on 11.11.2014. The petitioner issued a cheque without sufficient amount in his account. Therefore, the respondent issued a legal notice on 17.11.2014 calling upon the payment of Rs.5 lakhs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner received the notice on 18.11.2014 and gave a reply dated 18.11.2014 with false allegations. Since, he failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days, the complaint was filed.

3. After the petitioner entered appearance, he was questioned with regard to the offence alleged against him. He denied the offence and the trial was commenced. During the trial, the respondent was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 had been marked. On the side of the petitioner DW-1 to DW-4 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay fine, he has to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Against the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2016, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode did not interfere with the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Against the said judgment, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the members of chit fund run by one Sathyan. The said Sathyan insisted on issuing cheque as security for the chit transaction. He received amount from many persons and ran out of the village. The respondent is a close relative of the said Sathyan. Using the cheque given to Sathyan as security, the respondent filed this case. Though the petitioner examined four witnesses and produced documents to prove his case, both the courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The petitioner, as an accused, is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough, if he proves his case by preponderance of probability.

5. In fact, the petitioner, did not know the respondent at all. When the petitioner says that he did not know the respondent, it is for the respondent to prove his acquaintance with the petitioner and reasons for lending a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. How could he lend Rs.5,00,000/- to a person, who is not familiar and a stranger to him. It is also seen from the evidence of respondent that he did not take any other document except cheque for lending the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent has no means to lend Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioner has no necessity to borrow such a huge sum. The documents filed by the petitioner establishes the payment of money towards chit instalments. The income tax statement shows that the respondent has no sufficient funds in his account. The petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (2009) 14 SCC 398 [M.D.Thomas Vs. P.S.Jaleel and Anot