Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act place the burden on the accused to disprove liability once a cheque is presented and dishonoured, emphasizing the necessity of proof for enforceable debts.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri made in Crl.A.No.12 of 2023 dated 06.02.2024 reversing the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC, Dharmapuri in S.T.C.No.44 of 2019 dated 28.02.2022.

2. It is averred that the petitioner/complainant and the respondents/accused are known to each other by a common friend. In the month of December, 2016, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,38,000/- from the complainant for business requirements and agreed to return it back within a period of 6 months along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The accused requested the complainant to transfer the money in three bank accounts. As per his instructions, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the account of accused and Rs.1,23,000/- to one Jeeva who is the wife of the accused and Rs.75,000/- to one Kothandam. When the complainant asked for the repayment of borrowed money after six months, the accused-2 issued City Union Bank cheque bearing No.000240 dated 30.01.2019 in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,38,000/-. When the complainant presented the cheque through his banker for collection on 14.02.2019, the same was returned as “Insufficient Fund” with a return memo on 14.02.2019 to the complainant. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused-2 dated 04.03.2019 calling upon the accused to repay the borrowed money within 15 days, which was not received by accused-2 and the notice was returned to complainant on 15.03.2019 with an information “door locked intimation delivered”. Therefore, left with not other alternative, a complaint was filed by the petitioner as against the respondents for an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court in S.T.C.No.44 of 2019. While so, after trial, the court below had disposed the said complaint filed by the petitioner by convicting the respondents vide judgment dated 28.02.2022, against which, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court in Crl.A.No.12 of 2023 and the lower appellate court vide judgement dated 06.02.2024 allowed the appeal by acquitting the respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount was transferred through three bank accounts as instructed by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that 2nd respondent did not deny issuance of cheque and the signature in the cheque/Ex.P.3. Once the signature was admitted and the accused failed to prove their case, the petitioner is entitled for statutory presumptions in favour of the petitioner and the burden to rebut the said presumption is upon the accused, however, the accused had not rebutted the presumption. He further submitted that, in the cross-examination, the petitioner had deposed that there was a complaint as against the 2nd respondent's wife, that will not deprive the rights of the petitioner to file a complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Further, in the cross-examination, the petitioner specifically denied that he has not obtained the cheque from the 2nd respondent in the police station and the said cheque was voluntarily issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, which stood dishonoured. By considering all the above aspects, the trial court has rightly convicted the respondents, however, the lower appellate court has acquitted the respondents, which requires interference. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, even as per the complaint, the petitioner claimed that he transferred Rs.1,40,000/- to the bank account of 2nd accused and Rs.1,23,000/- to 2nd accused's wife bank account and Rs.75,000/- to one Kothandam's bank account. Though such a averment is averred in the complaint, however the petitioner not examined hi