The duty of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the limited scope of revision for interference with lower courts' judgments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order made in Crl.A.No.24 of 2016 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu dated 11.02.2019 confirming the order in the C.C.No.767 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 06.07.2016.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to set aside the order made in Crl.A.No.24 of 2016 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu dated 11.02.2019 confirming the order in C.C.No.767 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 06.07.2016.

2. The petitioner is accused and the respondent is the complainant.

3. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- from the respondent in order to start a business, after executing promissory notes. Thereafter, when the respondent demanded the petitioner for repayment, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.077465 dated 29.08.2010 drawn at Syndicate bank, Selaiyur Branch, Chennai for a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- and when the respondent presented the said cheque for collection with his banker, the same was returned with a return memo dated 31.08.2010 stating “Fund Insufficient.” Hence, the respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 27.09.2010 and same was also received by the petitioner. However, he neither repaid the money nor given any reply to the same. Hence, the respondent had no other option except to file the case under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Accordingly, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, and the same was taken on file in C.C. No.767 of 2011. The learned Magistrate after trial, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- to the respondent as compensation. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.No.24 of 2016. After arguments, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Now challenging the Judgment of dismissal of the appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the respondent has not proved that he is having financial capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.4,83,000/- and he has also not produced any supportive document to substantiate the date of borrowal or any other document obtained from the petitioner for the alleged borrowal and therefore, in the absence of the same, the respondent has not proved that the cheque was supported with valuable consideration. Further, the respondent has not proved that the cheque was issued to discharge the legally enforcible debt. Unfortunately, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and allowed the complaint and convicted the revision petitioner which warrants interference of this Court.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioner has admitted the execution and also the signature found in the cheque. Further, in one place he has stated that he has partially discharged the debt and in another place he has stated fully discharged. However, he has not produced any document to substantiate the same. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the petitioner and there is no ground to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

8. Admittedly the petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant.