O R D E R

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

2. Convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.

3. The respondent herein filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. This criminal revision petition is filed against the order passed by V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in C.A.No.45 of 2013 by an order dated 09.02.2015, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, STC No.188/2012 (STC.822/09-JM.No.7, Coimbatore) dated 26.02.2013 and affirming the sentence of Simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

5. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner is a customer of the respondent who is a dealer in computer accessories having credit dealings with the respondent. As per the accounts maintained by the respondent in the regular course of business the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,93,779/-. As such the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.4,50,000/- and the respondent presented the cheque on 04.06.2009, on its dishonor on 05.06.2009, the petitioner then requested the respondent to represent, accordingly, on funds in the drawer's account. The respondent issued the statutory notice on 15.10.2009.

5(i) The contention of the petitioner is that he was dealing with the respondent company for the past 5 years and the usual practice is to give a cheque and get the goods in the morning and on the same day evening cash would be paid and the cheque would be returned to the petitioner.

5(ii) Even after payment of cash this cheque was not returned on the same days and it was requested that the next day chque would be returned to the petitioner, the cheque was issued as security and was not intended to be deposited in bank.

6. The respondent was examined as the sole witness as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and his wife was examined as D.W.2. After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty as complained of under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the petitioner and the appellate Court also continued the conviction and the sentence and hence, the revision.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the trial Court has committed an error in giving the statutory presumption in favour of the respondent.

8. Heard, the learned counsel for the respondent.

9. On perusal of the documents filed by the respondent, it is seen that the minutes extract and authorisation letter are Ex.P1. The ledger account pertaining to the accused for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 is Ex.P2. The original cheque dated 16.04.2009 for Rs.4.50 lakhs of Karur Vysys Bank with No.180343 is Ex.P3. Return memo dated 07.10.2009 is Ex.P4. Legal notice dated 15.10.2009 with two postal receipts is Ex.P5. Two acknowledgment cards are Ex.P6 series. With this complainant side evidence was closed.

10. During the cross examination of P.W.1, there is a signature in the cheque and issuance of cheque by the revision petitioner are not disputed and hence, both the Courts below has rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent/private complainant is entitled to statutory presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act including the existence of legally enforceable debt.

11. The suggestive case of the defence is that it is an usual process to give a cheque and get the goods in the morning and on the same day evening, cash would be paid and the cheque would be returned to the accused. However, even after payment of cash, the petition-cheque was not returned on the same day and when it was requested, they said the next day, the cheque would be returned. However, without doing so, notice has been sent by complainant