The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 138 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the signature in the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 is attracted, and it becomes the burden of the accused to establish that the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 18.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2013 in confirming the judgment dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai-81 in erroneously convicted the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to 1 year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- default sentence of 3 months Simple Imprisonment.)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality of the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in C.A.No.114 of 2013 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court-1), Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.1226 of 2011.

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent complainant and to discharge the said debt, he gave two cheques one for Rs.50,000/- and another for Rs.75,000/- dated 04.03.2010 and 15.04.2010 respectively. On presentation of the cheques, they were bounced with an endorsement “insufficient fund”. Statutory notice was issued on 18.09.2010 and the same was received by the petitioner/accused but failed to reply and not paid the cheque amount. Hence, this complaint.

3. To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1, 10 exhibits were marked on the side of the complainant. 3 documents were marked on the side of the accused to discharge the burden of liability.

4. However, the trial Court held that the signatures in the cheques are not disputed. When the statutory notice was issued, he did not deny the liability. The plea of the accused that the date of borrowing the money not been properly mentioned in the complaint was overruled by the trial Court on the ground that though the exact date of lending the money has not been specified by the complainant. The date of cheques would indicate that the borrowing date was prior to the cheques date. Relying upon the pronouncement of this Court and other High Courts and particularly, in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in [CDJ (2010) SC 418], the trial Court held the accused guilty and ordered him to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- within a period of 3 months, in default, to under 3 months SI, besides one year Simple Imprisonment for giving cheques without sufficient funds. The Appeal preferred by the accused also came to be dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

5. The petitioner pleaded that the cheques were not issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. Prior two months for issuance of the cheques, the petitioner was abducted and blank cheques were obtained by the complainant. In this connection, the complaint was given and the same was registered as CSR, which is marked as Ex.P8(series). The complainant has presented the blank cheques and pro-note for collecting the money and the same has been proved by marking Exs.D1 and D2. However, the Courts below failed to consider these documents and also failed to consider the money suit filed by the wife of the complainant against this petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- alleging she gave Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and the petitioner failed to pay the money. The said suit in O.S.No.11429 of 2010 is filed in the year 2010 and the judgment copy of the said suit is marked as Ex.D3. While already the petitioner/accused owed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the wife of the complainant and the suit is pending for recovery, no prudent man will further advance of Rs.1,25,000/- to the petitioner and this point has not been considered by the Courts below.

6. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 fastened the criminal liability on the drawer of the che