The initial burden of proof lies with the Complainant to establish a legally enforceable debt, which was not met, leading to the reversal of the conviction.

ORDER :

(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)

This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem confirming the Judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed in STC. No. 4 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case, are as follows:-

2.1. The Respondent herein, as Complainant, filed S.T.C. No. 4 of 2016 contending that the Petitioner/Accused approached him for extending financial assistance and at her request, he paid Rs.9,34,000/- on 02.03.2015 to meet her urgent needs. On receipt of the amount, the Accused assured to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the Accused failed and neglected to pay the amount inspite of repeated demands. Ultimately, the Accused issued the cheque dated 18.11.2015 for Rs.9,34,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Shewapet Branch, Salem. The Complainant presented the cheque with his bankers – Indian Bank, Shevapet Branch, Salem for encashment. However, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds'. The Complainant therefore issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2015 calling upon the Accused to repay the cheque amount. Though the notice was received, the Accused had neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply notice. Therefore, the Complainant had filed the complaint in S.T.C. No. 4 of 2016 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.2. When summons were issued to the Accused, she appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and she was furnished with the copy of the complaint and other documents. When she was questioned about the offence committed under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 she denied and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was ordered. During the trial, the Complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and marked four documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On behalf of the defence, the Manager of Indian Bank, Shevapet Branch, Salem, where the Complainant was maintaining his Bank account, was examined as D.W-1 and one document was marked as Ex.D-1.

2.3. The trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the Respondent- Accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months together with fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2.4. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2017 passed in S.T.C. No. 4 of 2016, the Accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2017 before the Appellate Court and the same was also dismissed on 21.02.2019 confirming the conviction and sentence.

2.5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.2019, passed in C.A. No. 71 of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem, in STC. No. 4 of 2016, dated 31.05.2017 this Criminal Revision Case had been filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused submitted that the Petitioner/Accused was residing in a tin shed measuring 10x10 feet. She does not have the necessity to avail loan of such a huge amount to the tune of Rs.9,34,000/-. It is further stated that the husband of the Petitioner/Accused and the Complainant were friends. Under the pretext of getting loan from other sources, the Complainant obtained cheque from the husband of the Accused as security. Believing the words of the Complainant, the husband of the Accused handed over the cheque of the Accused to the Complainant, which was misused by the Complainant to file the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of the Complainant as P.W-1. In the cross-examination, P.W-1 admits that