ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby confirming the Judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed in C.C.No.58 of 2014 of the learned District Munsif-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of Denkanikottai, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent, the petitioner is well known person to her and in the month of January, 2013, in order to improve his business and to construct a house, he borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as a loan from the respondent. He also promised to repay the said amount within a period of four months. However, he failed to pay the said amount. After repeated request, in order to repay the said amount, he issued post dated cheque. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned for the reason as 'fund insufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent caused statutory notice and the same was returned as 'door locked'. Hence, the complaint.

3. On the side of the respondent, she was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner did not examine any witness and did not mark any document.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed and the order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Hence, the revision.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner never received any notice. According to the respondent, it was returned as 'door locked'. Therefore, it would not be sufficient service and as such, the complaint is not maintainable and that is find any cause of action. The petitioner categorically denied his signature found in the cheque. When the petitioner denied the signature, the burden shifted to the respondent to prove the signature found in the cheque. Though, the respondent categorically admitted in his cross examination that the respondent failed to take any steps to send the cheque for hand writing expert opinion to prove the signature of the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the respondent had no source of income to lend the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- when she receives only Rs.14,000/- as family pension. She also categorically admitted that she only receives Rs.14,000/- as family pension on the demise of her husband. Therefore, the petitioner categorically rebutted the evidence of the respondent and rebutted the presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He also submitted that while suspending the sentence, the petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Trial Court and the petitioner had duly complied with the condition and deposited the said amount.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that when the petitioner had taken a specific stand that he never signed in the disputed cheque, it is the duty of the petitioner to disprove the signature found in the cheque. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send the cheque for hand writing expert opinion by denying the signature found in the cheque. Further, the petitioner wantonly and illegally returned the notice with an endorsement 'door locked'. The endorsement 'door locked' is also sufficient amount of service. The petitioner had full knowledge about the statutory notice. Even then, he failed to reply and he failed to examine any witnesses to substantiate the defence raised before the Trial Court. Therefore