The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be rebutted by the accused through cogent evidence, which the accused failed to provide in this case.

Both the courts below acquitted the respondents/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, aggrieved over which the present revision is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as complainant and accused.

3. The case of the complainant/revision petitioner in a nutshell is as follows:

• i. The two firms, namely, A.D.J. Shipping Company Private Limited, Chennai (revision petitioner) and M/s. Rathinam & Sons, Chennai (respondent) have been associated with each other since 1947. The former is engaged in clearance of imported cargo and the latter firm is one of its clients, which is engaged in import of scrap iron.

• According to the complainant, there was a due of Rs.2,00,000/- to it from the accused' firm and a cheque (Ex.P1) bearing number 442883 dated 06.07.2005 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mylapore, was issued by the accused towards his liability.

• ii. The said cheque which was presented for collection on 06.07.2005 to Catholic Syrian Bank, II line Beach, Chennai, was returned on 07.07.2005 with an endorsement 'insufficient funds', as is seen from the cheque return memo (Ex.P2). iii. According to the complainant, the return of the cheque was not only intimated to the accused firm but a legal notice (Ex.P3) dated 29.07.2005 was also issued which was refused to be received by the accused, as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgement card (Ex.P4). Since the amount towards dishonoured cheque was not made good by the accused firm, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, George Town, Chennai, in S.T.C. No.8953/2005. iv. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, George Town, Chennai, took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and issued summons to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. v. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation made in the complaint was put to the accused and since the accused pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial.

• vi. On the side of the complainant, the Power of Attorney of the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked.

• vii.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied of having committed any offence. He examined himself and marked Ex.R1 to R7.viii. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court judge acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide his judgment and orders dated 01.10.2014. ix. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant filed an appeal in C.A.No.314/2014 before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the appeal, vide his judgment and orders dated 27.11.2018. x. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

4. Heard Mr.B. Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R. Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Both the lower courts conclusively decided that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been satisfactorily rebutted by the accused firm and therefore in the light of such a favourable evidence on their side the guilt of the accused firm is not proved. Secondly, it was also held by them that the failure of the accused to issue a reply notice cannot be a ground for convicting the accused firm.

6. The trial court had elaborately gone into the deposition of P.W.1 who was authorised to represent the complainant. In his deposition P.W.1 had admitted that his firm, as a forwarding and clearing agent, had to engage the services of Steamer Age