The court affirmed that a retrial under the Negotiable Instruments Act is only justified in exceptional cases; the accused's failure to present a defense allows presumptions of debt and liability to operate against him.

ORDER :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner has filed these Criminal Revision petitions, prays to set aside the order in Crl.A.Nos.605 to 607 of 2023 & 610 to 623 of 2023, dated 09.10.2025 before the leaned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the sentence imposed in C.C. Nos. 9164, 9162, 9160, 5822, 9166, 5819, 5818, 5821, 9165, 9163, 9161, 5820, 9159, 5817, 5824, 9158 & 5823 of 2018, respectively, dated 13.09.2023 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore aliles Allikulam, Chennai.

2. Challenging the findings of the First Appellate Court, the defacto complainant has preferred the present Revisions. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/complainant filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , alleging that the acts of the accused/respondent attracted offences punishable under of the said Act. Based on the same, the complaints were taken on file, resulting in 17 calendar cases. Summons were issued to the respondent, who appeared before the Trial Court, and the cases were taken on file on 27.04.2018. Of the 17 cases, 8 cases were taken on file on 23.07.2018 and the remaining 9 cases on 01.11.2018. In all the cases, the accused appeared and copies were furnished.

3.Thereafter, the matters were posted for evidence on 05.07.2019. The cases were periodically adjourned and ultimately listed on 25.07.2022. Final notice was issued and the cases were posted on 12.08.2022. Subsequently, the matters were adjourned to 02.09.2022 and finally to 31.10.2022. On that day, the complainant filed his proof affidavit and examined himself as PW1. Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked, as there was no representation on behalf of the accused. The complainant’s side evidence was closed, and the matters were adjourned for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.11.2022.

4. On the said date, the accused was absent. Thereafter, the cases were adjourned on various dates. The accused filed a recall petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and cross-examined PW1 thereafter. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the accused, however, no evidence was adduced on his side. Consequently, the defence evidence was closed. During cross-examination, Exhibit A1 was marked on the side of the accused. The cases were posted for defence evidence on 11.08.2023. On that day also, the accused was absent and the matters were adjourned to 17.08.2023. Since no defence evidence was adduced even on 21.08.2023, the defence side evidence was closed and the cases were posted for arguments on 28.08.2023.

5. On 28.08.2023, arguments on behalf of the complainant were heard. Thereafter, the cases were adjourned to 02.09.2023 for arguments on the side of the accused. On that day, the recall petition filed by the accused was dismissed and the cases were posted for judgment on 30.09.2023, with liberty granted to the accused to file written arguments. On the day fixed for judgment, the accused sought a certified copy of the order passed on the Section 311 petition, which request was rejected. Thereupon, the learned Trial Judge pronounced the judgment, holding that the complainant had proved that the cheques were issued only towards repayment of the borrowal amount. It was further held that the accused had admitted the issuance of the cheques and had never denied his signature.

6. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that, by virtue of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , a legally enforceable debt existed. The learned Trial Judge further held that the said presumption is rebuttable, but the accused had neither led a