A drawer of a cheque may incur liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless they can sufficiently rebut the statutory presumptions of consideration and debt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.973 of 2017, dated 29.11.2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

4.Admittedly, the complainant was doing business in the name and style of 'Vignesh Enterprises' and the second accused had business transaction with the complainant. It is not in dispute that the second accused is the husband of the first accused and the second accused was doing business in selling computer papers.

4.The case of the complainant is :

a) The second accused had business dealing with the complainant and there was a balance amount of Rs.3,32,989/- due by the second accused to the complainant as per agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused 1 and 2, dated 29.12.2010. As per the said agreement, the first accused agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.3,32,989/- to the complainant, for which, she issued a cheque for Rs.3,32,989/-, dated 15.05.2011 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai in favour of the complainant.

b) The complainant, presented the cheque for collection through his bank Indian Overseas Bank, Theppakulam Branch and the same was returned as payment stopped by the drawer. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice, dated 02.06.2011 to the accused demanding them to pay the amount covered by the cheque. Both the accused having received the notice on 03.06.2011, failed to make any payment, but sent a reply notice, dated 15.06.2011 with false and untenable allegations. Since the accused have not paid the cheque amount within stipulated period, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint against the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case, took the case on file in S.T.C.No.1165 of 2011 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of the records were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., on free of cost. When the accused were questioned about the offence alleged against him, they denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. When the case was pending for trial, as per proceedings of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, dated 26.06.2012, the case was transferred to the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court at JM Level, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.336 of 2012.

7. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The accused adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 18.11.2013 holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of ac