O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the Judgement passed in C.A.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, confirming the Judgement in order dated 09.02.2015 passed in S.T.C.No.136 of 2014 on the file of the Fast Tract Court, Ambathur.

2.The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging that he had given a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the accused/petitioner herein and towards the discharge of the said loan amount, the petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on 25.04.2013; when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned by the Banker for the reason ''Funds insufficient''; then he had issued a statutory notice to the accused to his address and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ''not claimed''. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked seven documents viz. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The petitioner examined two witnesses on his side and marked three documents. The petitioner's defence during the trial was that the cheque was not issued to the respondent in discharge of any liability and it was issued only for the purpose of security.

3.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court vide judgement dated 09.02.2015 in S.T.C.No.136 of 2014 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo Six Months Simple Imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) to the complainant u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. as compensation. The petitioner challenged the said conviction and sentence before the I Additional Sessions Judge in C.A.No.16 of 2015 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision.

4.There was no representation for the petitioner on 24.06.2022 and also on 15.07.2022. Therefore, this Court by an order dated 15.07.2022, directed the Registry to appoint Mrs.S.Sridevi, Legal Aid Counsel to represent the petitioner.

5.Heard Mrs.S.Sridevi, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.G.Peramban, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for nd the 2 respondent.

6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner, without considering the material facts that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the cheque was issued only for the security purpose. The learned Counsel further submitted that though in the complaint, the respondent had stated that the cheque was issued for the discharge of loan amount, the cheque was issued only as a security. The learned counsel relied upon the judgement of this Court in M.V.S.Rajendranath vs Raj Television Network Ltd., reported in 2022 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 132 (Mad.), in support of her submission.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt; thatthe petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption in the manner known to law. He further submits that the Courts below have rightly disbelieved the defence of the petitioner and convicted him for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The cheque was given only for discharge of the liability of the petitioner.

8. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to reiterate the principle that while exercising Revisional Jurisdiction involving concurrent finding of the Courts below, this Court cannot act as a second Appellate Court.

9. It is trite law that in a Revision challenging Appellate Court's judgement, confirming the judgement of trial Court, the Court can appreciate the evidence only to the limited extent of ascertaining if the finding is perverse, unreasonable or implausible.

10.In the case on hand, we find that the complainant has established the fact that the cheq