The burden of proof shifts back to the Complainant after the Accused rebuts the initial presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, necessitating clear evidence of the loan's legitimacy.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the Judgment dated 25.04.2016 passed in C.C. No.36 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode.

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

2.1. The Appellant in this Appeal is the Complainant, who had filed the Complaint in C.C. No. 36 of 2009. As per the complaint, on 05.04.2008, the Respondent/Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the same in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid on 10.05.2008 and the other instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid on 20.05.2008. On receipt of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- the Accused had issued two cheques, each for Rs.1,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented for collection through Federal Bank Limited, Erode Branch on 21.05.2008, they were returned on 22.05.2008 for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, the Appellant issued a statutory notice on 02.06.2008 calling upon the Respondent/Accused to pay the cheque amount. Though the Accused received the notice, he had not sent any reply and therefore, the complaint was filed.

2.2. In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the Appellant examined himself as P.W-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. On conclusion of Complainant side evidence, when the Accused was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating materials made available against him, he had stated that a false complaint had been filed against him. However, the Respondent/Accused had not examined any witness on his side.

2.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that even though the Complainant raised an initial presumption, it was successfully rebutted by the Accused by raising doubt as to the source of income of the Complainant. In fact, the Complainant had not satisfactorily explained about the source of income to extend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan to the Accused. Further, the Trial Court concluded that even prior to the transaction in question, the Complainant and Accused had acquaintance, however, the Complainant had stated as though he knew the Accused only through his business activities. Accordingly, by Judgment dated 25.04.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant.

2.4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by Judgment dated 25.04.2016 passed in C.C. No.36 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, the Complainant had filed this Criminal Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant extended a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Accused. On receipt of which, the Accused handed over two cheques viz., Cheque No.010726 dated 10.05.2008 and Cheque No.010727 dated 20.05.2008 each for Rs.1,00,000/- towards repayment of the loan. Those cheques were returned on 22.05.2008 with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Therefore, a legal notice was issued on 02.06.2008 to the Accused, which he received on 03.06.2008, however, the Accused neither replied nor paid the cheque amount. Thus, the Complainant- Appellant raised a strong presumption in favour that he had paid money to the Accused and for repayment of the same, the Accused had issued the two cheques. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to consider that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in his favour. Even tho