The main legal point established is that the issuance of a cheque to discharge an existing liability under the NI Act can be established based on evidence of borrowing and admission of the debt by the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tract Court, Magisterial level, Ambattur in S.T.C.No.92 of 2016 dated 22.08.2017 convicting the accused and sentenced to undergo four simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant within one month and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur in C.A.No.134 of 2017 dated 06.11.2019.)

1.The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as “the NI Act”). This Criminal Revision is filed by the accused who was found guilty by the trial Court and same confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant R.Kumar and the accused Rajhini are related to each other. The husband of the accused and the complainant were involved in real estate business and they had money transaction between them. In the course of the said transaction, it is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.15,78,000/- through NEFT to the account of the accused and further sum of Rs.14,72,000/- was given as loan by the wife of the complainant to the accused. Totally a sum of Rs.30,50,000/- was due and payable by the accused. While so, to discharge the debt the subject cheque dated 15.06.2015 for Rs.30,00,000/- drawn at Karnataka Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar branch, was issued to the complainant by the accused. The cheque returned for want of funds. Hence the complaint, after causing statutory notice.

3. The accused on receipt of the statutory notice had replied through her lawyer, wherein the relationship and the money transactions admitted. Specifically in the reply, the accused has stated that she and her husband had jointly obtained loan of Rs.24,00,000/- on various occasions from the complainant and his wife. The said transaction commenced in the year 2013 and they were periodically repaying the interest at the rate of 36%. However, misusing the blank cheque given earlier, the amount has been filled as Rs.30,00,000/- and presented for collection.

4. Before the trial Court, the complainant has marked the entries in the statement of account to prove that total sum of Rs.15,78,000/- been transferred through NEFT to the account of the accused on various dates commencing from 17.09.2013 to 13.06.2015 as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Further a sum of Rs.14,72,000/- received from his wife, who withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,72,500/- from her account maintained in State Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch and also further sum of Rs.3,84,000/- and Rs.4,15,000/- paid to the accused by his wife viz., Sujatha by pledging her jewels in Kilpauk Benefit Saswatha Nidhi Ltd., Mogappair. Thus, he claimed that totally a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- given as loan to the accused. To discharge the said debt, said cheque was issued. He has also marked the entries pertaining to the bank account and jewel loan account of his wife as Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8.

5. In defence, the accused has cross-examined the complainant suggesting that there is no proof for payment of Rs.6,72,500/- alleged to have been withdrawn from the account of the complainant''s wife maintained at State Bank of India, Anna Nagar, and for the payment of Rs.3,84,000 and Rs.4,15,500/-. Further suggested that several amount had been paid to the account of the complainant by the accused and her husband between 23.09.2014 to 16.12.2015 to a tune of Rs.6,31,000/- and the same has been suppressed by the complainant.

6. The trial Court on considering the evidence and the entries found in the statement of account which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, accepted the case of the complainant that his wife had withdrawn money from her bank account and also raised jewel loan, to ad