Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant when adequate evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

The appellant as complainant filed private complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S.T.C.No.19 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajapet (trial Court). The trial Court by judgment dated 29.10.2020 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent. Against which, the present criminal appeal is filed.

2.Despite service of notice and the respondent’s name printed in the cause list, there was no representation for the respondent either in person or by any counsel. Hence, this Court by order dated 22.09.2025 appointed Ms.Harshana.T as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.

3.Gist of the case is that during the month of July 2017, for urgent business requirement, the respondent approached the appellant for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and promised to repay within three months. Believing the same, the appellant gave loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. In discharge of liability, the respondent issued a cheque (Ex.P1) dated 10.10.2017 bearing No.919736 drawn on State Bank of India, Walajapet. When the appellant presented the cheque (Ex.P1) for encashment in Indian Bank, Walajapet on 10.10.2017, the same returned on 11.10.2017 for the reason “Insufficient Funds” with a bank memo (Ex.P2). Thereafter, statutory notice (Ex.P3) issued to the respondent on 04.11.2017 which was received on 08.11.2017, thereafter, the respondent sent a reply notice (Ex.P5) with false allegations. Ignoring the same, complaint filed before the trial Court. During trial, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence/respondent, no witness examined but two documents marked as Exs.D1 & D2 (sale deed) through PW1/appellant. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent, against which, the present criminal appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the appellant and respondent are known to each other. For urgent business needs, the respondent during the month of July 2017 obtained loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash from the appellant, at that time, the respondent issued a post dated cheque (Ex.P1) dated 10.10.2017 in discharge of liability. In this case, the said post dated cheque (Ex.P1) marked as Ex.P1, bank return memo dated 11.10.2017 marked as Ex.P2, statutory notice dated 04.11.2017 marked as Ex.P3, postal acknowledgement marked as Ex.P4 and reply notice marked as Ex.P5. The trial Court on the evidence and exhibits marked though found that prima facie case made out and statutory presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 proved, thereafter, it is for the respondent to probablize his defence, but acquitted the respondent, is not proper.

5.Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent not got into the box and examined himself as witness, but marked two documents (Exs.D1 & D2) through the appellant and took a stand that the respondent and appellant had a business transaction with one Mani, a flower vendor, who owns some land, laid a layout and plotted lands. Both the appellant and respondent joined together, approached Mani to sell the plotted lands in Lakshmi Nagar, at that time, Mani demanded Rs.20 lakhs as initial payment. The appellant paid Rs.10 lakhs and the respondent paid only Rs.5 lakhs, the balance Rs.5 lakhs paid by the appellant on behalf of the respondent to Mani, at that time, the appellant received signed blank cheque from the respondent. The defence taken is that this cheque misused and false case filed against the respondent, is not proper. To prove the business transact