The main legal point established is the reliance on the presumption conferred by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the requirement for the accused to substantiate their defense against the presumption.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem dated 2.11.2019 in C.A.No.91 of 2018 confirming the conviction of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Athur in S.T.C.No.62 of 2013, dated 08.06.2018.)

1. The Criminal Revision Petition is by the accused, who was found guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Courts below for issuing a cheque for Rs.8,50,000/- dated 29/04/2013 to the complainant, but failed to honour the same.

2. Mr.Thangavelu, the complainant in his complaint had stated that he and the accused are known to each other for years. On 28/02/2013 the accused, to meet his son‘s marriage expenses borrowed loan of Rs.8,50,000 and promised to repay the money within one month period and gave a post dated cheque for Rs.8,50,000/- to discharge the debt. The cheque dated 29/04/2013, when presented for collection returned along with a memorandum issued by State Bank of India dated 02/05/2013 stating that the cheque is returned for the reason “Insufficient fund”. The complainant issued a statutory notice dated 05.05.2013 to the accused, intimating that the cheque given by him to discharge the debt had been bounced for insufficient fund and calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The accused, who received the notice gave a reply dated 31/05/2013. In his reply, the accused denied issuance of cheque and any liability. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was present on 19th June 2013. It was taken on file on 24th June 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Alanthur in S.T.C.No.62 of 2013.

3. To prove the complaint averments, the complainant, his wife and his brother mounted the witness box and examined as PW-1 to PW-3. Eight exhibits were marked on the side of the complainant. For the defence, 4 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked.

4. While the case of the complainant was that, the cheque Ex.P-1 was drawn by the accused to discharge the liability namely, the loan borrowed on 28/02/2013, the accused put forth a defence that Ex.P-1 cheque was given in the year 2007 in respect of a loan availed from one Sriram of Salem. The complainant arranged the said loan and as security for repayment, the subject cheque was obtained in blank by the complainant at the time of borrowing. In spite of discharging the said debt with Sriram in 2009, the cheque given as security to the complainant was not returned to the accused in view of prevailing friendship he did not insist for return of the cheque. Later, the friendship broke taking advantage of the said blank cheque, the complainant has filed his name, date and amount as Rs.8,50,000/- and presented for collection with malafide intention.

5. According to the testimony of the accused examined as DW-1, his son met with an accident at Canada on 28/03/2007. To meet his medical expenses he requested the complainant to arrange finance. Accordingly the complainant arranged Rs.50,000/- as loan from one Sriram of Salem. For that loan, as a security blank cheque was given to the complainant. On 05/02/2009, he sold his land and on the same day discharged the loan borrowed from Sriram along with interest. The complainant promised to return the cheque later, but failed to return it. Contrarily presented the blank cheque by filling the name and amount fradulently.

6. Whereas on the side of the complainant, PW-1 has deposed that the accused and the complainant are employees in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation and they know each other for a long time. To meet his son’s marriage expenses, the accused sought for a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- and therefore, on 28/02/2013, the wife of the complainant (PW2) brought cash of Rs.8,50,000/- to Vhazhapadi bus depot where the accused and the complainant were on duty and the money was handed over to the accused. The