The burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act lies with the accused, and documentary or oral evidence is required to substantiate defenses in cheque bounce cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the judgment dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam in C.A.No.88 of 2018 and C.C.No.2 of 2018 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam.

Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the order dated 11.12.2019 passed in C.A.No.90 of 2018 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, Chennai, partly confirming the sentence imposed in C.C.No.2 of 2018 dated 29.10.2018 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam and direct to enhance the compensation to Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner/complainant.)

Common Order:

1. These two Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the parties to the criminal complaint arising under Section 138 of N.I Act, involving a cheque dated 07/03/2016 for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) drawn on Indian Bank, P.K.I.E.T Branch, Serumavilangai Nedungadu, Karaikal, issued by Smt.Durgadevi in favour of Chandrasekaran. The subject cheque when presented for collection on 14/03/2016, same was returned for the reason “Fund insufficient”. The drawee Chandrasekaran caused statutory notice to the drawer on 15/03/2016 calling upon her to pay the cheque amount within 15 days or to face the criminal prosecution. The drawer Durgadevi through her Lawyer replied on 22/03/2016 admitting money transaction, denied enforceable liability and alleged that the blank cheques issued during the money transaction in the year 2014 and 2015 when she borrowed Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant and that cheque been misused. Thereafter, for non-payment of the cheque amount after its return for insufficiency of fund and on expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the Chandrasekarn filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Pondicherry and it was taken on file as S.T.C.No.157/2016. Subsequently, on petition by the complainant Chandrasekaran, the case was transferred to Judicial Magistrate-1, Tindivanam, by order of the High Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.820/2018, dated 11/01/2018.

2. On transfer, the complaint was renumbered as C.C.No.2 of 2018 and tried by Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam. Before the Trial Court, Chandrasekaran/the complainant was examined as P.W-1, the Manager of his Bank Mr.Hemachandran was examined as P.W-2. On the side of the complainant, 13 documents were marked. Durgadevi–the accused chose not to examine any witness or to mark any document on her side. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence available, held Durgadevi/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and sentenced her to undergo 1 year S.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default one month S.I.

3. Being aggrieved by that, the accused Durgadevi filed C.A.No.88/2018 before the Principal District and Session Judge, Villupuram against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The Complainant Chandrasekaran filed appeal against the judgment for not awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C for him since he is monetarily affected by the action of the accused. Both the appeals were heard together and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in C.A.No.88 of 2018 preferred by the accused. Partly allowed the Crl.A.No.90/2018 preferred by the complainant. Thereby, the trial Court judgment of conviction confirmed. The sentence was modified by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.5,10,000/-, out of which Rs.5,00,000/- ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The said common order of the Lower Appellate Court dated 11/12/2019 is tested before this Court by these criminal revision cases.

4. The complainant-Chandrasekaran is the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.72 of 2020 and the Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020. The accused Durgadevi is the Revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.72 of 2020 and the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.122