The accused must disprove statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act by showing that the cheque was obtained by undue influence or coercion.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge at Coimbatore in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2020 dated 04.10.2021 in reversing the well considered judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Magisterial Level at Coimbatore in C.C.No.93 of 2018 dated 06.08.2020.)

1. Challenging the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2020 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge at Coimbatore reversing the judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed in C.C.No.93 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Magisterial Level at Coimbatore.

2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the fatherin- law of one deceased Chandrasekar. His wife Chandra is the daughter of the complainant. After his death, his wife Chandra and her daughter Ishwarya are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandrasekar. The accused has to pay a huge sum of money to the deceased Chandrasekar. After his death, this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant and his daughter Chandra. When they contacted the accused, the accused admitting his liability issued a cheque bearing No.795380 dated 17.08.2017 drawn on Andhara Bank, P.N.Pudur Branch, Coimbatore for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. On 24.08.2017, the cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned as insufficient funds. Again at the request of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque on 27.09.2017 and the same was returned again on 28.09.2017 as insufficient funds. After issuing legal notice, the complainant filed a complaint in C.C.No.93 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2 @ Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed six documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence has been examined and filed one document as Ex.D1.

4. The trial Court, after trial on considering the evidence of the parties, found guilty and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cheque to the complainant within one month from the date of judgment, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved against the same, the accused prepared an appeal in C.A.No.163 of 2020 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, after considering the records and the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the accused and set aside the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.93 of 2018.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Judgment of the appellate judge is contrary to the facts and law. The signature in the cheque is not disputed by the accused. Section 139 of N.I Act raises presumptions of law that the cheque duly drawn was in discharge of debt or liability. The appellate Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the disputed cheque was issued at Katoor Police Station and there was no evidence adduced by the accused to show any undue influence or coercion. Further, contended that login of police report allowed is not enough, there should be acceptable proof for undue influence and coercion having not properly appreciated the evidence, acquitted the accused which is unsustainable, hence, it is liable to be set aside and the order of the trial Court has to be restored and thus, pleaded to allow this criminal appeal. To support his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Telangana High Court dated 11.11.2022 in V.Ramachandra Rao Vs. V.Manohar Another.

6. The learned couns