The presumption of issuance of a cheque for consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial of the transaction without evidence.

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -V, Palakkad (for short, 'the trial court') in S.T.No.55 of 2019 dated 03/05/2024 and confirmed by the Court of Session, Palakkad (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.A. No. 80 of 2024 dated 30/07/2024.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused and the respondent No.2 is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act'). The case of the respondent No.2 is that he was doing vegetable business and he had business relationship with the petitioner for about one year. Towards the amount due in the said business transactions, Exts.P1 and P3 cheques were issued which on presentation were returned as dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice issued by the respondent No.2 was received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution under of the N.I.Act was lodged.

3. On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5(b) were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and he was convicted for the same. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,21,114/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the respondent No.2 as compensation under Section 357 (1) of the Cr.PC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate court against the conviction and sentence of the trial court was dismissed. Now this revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

5. I went through the records. The respondent No.2 himself gave evidence as PW1. He gave evidence in tune with the averments in the complaint. The petitioner totally denied the transaction. He contended that he borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent No.2 and cheques were given as security towards the said debt. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the execution of the cheque stands proved through the evidence of PW1. No defence evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to rebut the presumption available to the respondent No.2 under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. I find no reason to upset the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court regarding the transaction and the execution of the cheque. The trial court convicted the petitioner and it was rightly upheld by the appellate court. What remains is sentence. The trial court has only imposed sentence of fine of the cheque amount. Hence, the sentence imposed also appears to be absolute and reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted six months' time to pay the fine amount. The said request appears to be genuine. Hence, the petitioner is granted six months' time from today to pay the fine amount. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.