The court ruled that the failure to rebut the legal presumption of debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justifies conviction, with the sentence modified to compensation.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment dated 26.06.2023 made in C.A. No.62 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet confirming the judgment dated 07.01.2020 made in S.T.C.No.307 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Arcot.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the original complainant namely A.L.Sivakumar had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.307 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Arcot. The trial Court, after enquiry, found the guilt of the petitioner and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet in C.A. No.62 of 2020 and during pendency of the appeal, the original complainant died and thereby, the wife of the complainant namely S.Sudha was impleaded as respondent as per amendment order in C.M.P.No.2 of 2021 dated 06.03.2021. But the said appeal was also dismissed by judgment dated 26.06.2023. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for his family and business commitments and for repayment, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.634313 drawn on State Bank of India, Arctor Branch. Thereafter, when the complainant presented the cheque with his banker viz., State Bank of India, Arcot Branch on 27.01.2017, the said cheque was returned on the same day since both the petitioner and the respondent's bank is one and the same, with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 30.01.2017. Though the petitioner received the legal notice, he neither sent any reply nor repaid the money. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section the 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.307 of 2017 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Arcot. The complainant substantiated his complaint by oral and documentary evidence and thereby, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appellate Court also rightly re-appreciated the evidence the confirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence. Therefore, there is no merits in this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that the cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt and that the complainant has not produced any evidence for payment Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. However, he submitted that the sentence of imprisonment may be altered to payment of compensation and that the petitioner is ready to pay the cheque amount.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the records that in order to substantiate his complaint, the original complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Bank Manager, State Bank of India was examined as P.W.2 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 viz., the cheque was marked as Ex.P.1, the bank return memo was marked as Ex.P.2, the statutory notice sent to the petitioner through Advocate was marked as Ex.P.3, the acknowledgement card for receipt of statutory notice by the petitioner was marked as Ex.P.4 and the bank statement of the petitioner for the period between 10.11.2016 to 27.01.2017 was marked as Ex.P.5.

7. However, on the side of the petitioner, no oral or documentary evidence was produced to refute the evidence adduced by the complainant and prove his case that the signature found in the cheque is not that of him. Further, despit