The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant's evidence sufficiently proved the debt payable by the accused, and the accused's defenses were unsustainable in light of the statutory presumption and established legal standards.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 22.07.2015 made in C.A.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore confirmed the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.310 of 2012 dated 28.08.2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore.)

1. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.310/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore. In the private complaint filed against the petitioner for dishonouring the cheque issued by him for Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 20/06/2008 to discharge his liability to pay the complainant towards the sale consideration of polythene bags sold and delivered, he was found guilty and convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to undergo 10 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- in default, to undergo 2 months SI.

2. Aggreived by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.129 of 2014 before the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and the same came to be dismissed upholding the trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence.

3. The revision petition is filed on the premise that, the Courts below had not properly applied its mind to arrive at conclusion of holding him guilty. The complainant failed to mention the vehicle number through which the goods alleged to have been delivered to the accused. The invoice does not contain the signature to prove the delivery of goods. The documents called for production on summon issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was marked as prosecution side document instead of Court document. The owner of the complainant company, who knows about the business transaction was not examined as witness. The evidence of the power of attorney is not legally sustainable. The business transaction between the accused and the complainant stopped in the year 2006. The subject cheque given as security was misused by the complainant after two years.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.Narayanan –vs- State of Maharashtra and another reported in [(2016)1 SCC (Cri) 67, submitted that, complaint is filed through the power of attorney, who does not know about the transaction in connection with the subject cheque. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Pandurangan –vs- Sivakami reported in [2017(2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 113 (Mad)] and submitted that, the name of the complainant in the cheque is written in different ink and handwriting, therefore the Court should have entertained doubt about the consideration alleged to have passed to the payee. The burden is shifted to prove the debt. Since the complainant has failed to prove the enforceable debt, the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous.

5. The Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that, the accused running a properitory concern by name M/s Sun Poly Pack used to purchase polythene products from the complainant Firm M/s Rishaba Poly Packs on credit basis. As on 04/06/2008 a sum of Rs.6,35,677/- was due and payable. To discharge the said debt, Ex.P-2, the cheque No:930645 dated 20/06/2008 drawn by the accused from his account maintained at Karnataka Bank, Perumanallur Branch was given. The said cheque was presented for collection 02/07/2008 but returned on 09/07/2008 with the memo [Ex.P-3], stating ‘payment stopped by drawer’. The statutory notice [Ex.P-5] informing about the return of the cheque and calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount was sent on 25/07/2008. The accused received the notice sent through RPAD. The RPAD receipt and the postal acknowledgment card to prove the issuance of notice and delivery to the accused are marked as Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7. The ledger account to prove the transaction and due payable m