The court emphasized that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of the cheque, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, in C.C. No. 222 of 2012, dated 22.04.2015.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-

2.1. The Appellant herein had filed C.C. No. 222 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem contending that he knew the Accused /Respondent herein for the past 10 years. According to the Appellant/Complainant, having regard to such proximity of their relationship, the Accused requested the Appellant/Complainant to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to meet his urgent family and business needs. On the basis of such request, the Appellant had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent/Accused on 28.07.2012. On receipt of the amount, the Accused issued the Cheque No. 0240730 dated 28.09.2012 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Salem in favour of the Complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the Appellant with his Bankers Urban Bank, Ammapet Branch on 05.10.2012. On 11.10.2012 the cheque was returned along with a memo indicating that the cheque was issued from an “NPA Account”. Therefore, on 15.10.2012, the Appellant sent a notice to the Respondent calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The notice was sent to the Respondent/Accused to his office address as well as residential address. While the notice dated 26.10.2012 sent to the office address of the Accused was returned unserved, the notice sent to his residential address was received. However, the Accused has not sent any reply, hence, the complaint was filed by the Complainant/Appellant herein.

2.2. The complaint filed by the Appellant was taken cognizance on 21.12.2012 and summons were sent to the Respondent/Accused. When the Accused appeared before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, copies of the documents filed by the Complainant have been furnished to him at free of costs. When the Accused was questioned about the incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied the same. Therefore, trial was ordered. During the trial, the Appellant/Complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. When the Accused was questioned under Section 313 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Accused had stated that a false case had been foisted against him. The Accused, on his side, examined the Assistant Manager of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Salem as D.W-1 and marked two documents as Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2.

2.3. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the cheque in question was tendered by the Accused in the year 2000 to one Mr. Nataraj for security purpose and it was the subject matter of C.C. No. 221 and 222 of 2012. It was also concluded that the above cheques have been tendered in blank. When the Accused herein settled the debt incurred against Mr. Nataraj and asked for the cheque to be returned, the said Nataraj had informed him that the cheque had been lost. However, the said Natarajan has tendered the cheque of the Accused to the Complainant herein to institute the present complaint. Further, D.W-1, Manager of the Bank had deposed that the subject matter of the cheque was issued ten years before containing the cheque leaves bearing 0240726 to 0240750 and one of the cheques contained in the said cheque book was presented for clearance after ten years by the Complainant. D.W-1 also dep