The legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favored the respondent, and the petitioners' failure to rebut the presumption led to their conviction and sentencing.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.963 of 2017 : Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal C.A.No.30 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017 by the II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.89 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track No.1, Erode.

Crl.R.C.No.964 of 2017: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal C.A.No.31 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017 by the II Additional District Sessions Court, Erode confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.233 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track No.1, Erode.)

1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in Crl.A.No.30 of 2017 and 31 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017, confirming the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in S.T.C.No.89 of 2016 and 233 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The respondent filed private complaints against the petitioners on the ground that they had business transactions with the petitioners on credit basis and on account of various credit purchases made by the petitioners, cheques (five cheques in each case) were issued towards discharge of the liability. In S.T.C.No.89 of 2016 the total amount covered by the five cheques was to the tune of Rs.41,18,799/- and in S.T.C.No.233 of 2016 the total amount covered by the five cheques was to the tune of Rs.45,63,401/-. The further case of the respondent was that when the cheques were presented for collection on 15.07.2013 through City Union Bank, Erode branch, some cheques were returned with endorsement “Funds insufficient” and some cheques were returned with endorsement “Payment stopped by the drawer”. In view of this development, the respondent issued notice to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to pay the amount covered by the cheques. The notice was received by the petitioners and since neither a reply was given nor the amounts covered under the cheques were paid, the respondent proceeded to file private complaints against the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The Trial Court conducted separate trials in both the complaints. Insofar as S.T.C.No.89 of 2016 is concerned, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined on the side of the respondent and they marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On the side of the petitioners D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.D1 to D4 were marked. Insofar as the S.T.C.No.233 of 2016 is concerned, the respondent examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P1 to P30. The petitioners examined D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked Ex.D1 to D4. When the incriminating evidence collected in the course of trial was put to the petitioners, they denied the same as false.

4. The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent has made out a case and that the legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must go in favour of the respondent and further the petitioners have not rebutted the said legal presumption and accordingly, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. Insofar as S.T.C.No.89 of 2016 is concerned, all the petitioners were convicted and petitioners 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and they were directed to jointly or severally pay a total compensation amount of Rs.41,18,799/- which is equivalent to the amount covered under the cheques. Insofar as S.T.C.No.233 of 2016 is concerned, all the petitioners were convicted and petitioners 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo nine months simple imprisonmen