ORDER

This revision is filed as against the order passed in C.A.No.313 of 2017 dated 20.03.2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, thereby confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.245 of 2016 dated 01.09.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2015, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his urgent expenses and on the date of borrowal he issued a post-dated cheque. On instruction, when it was presented for collection and the same was returned for the reason “Account Blocked Situation Covered in 2125”. After causing statutory notice to the petitioner the respondent lodged a complaint.

4. On the side of the respondent PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 to 7 were marked and on the side of the petitioner no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo four months simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation of cheque amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the Court below. Hence this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheque was returned for the reason “Account Blocked Situation Covered in 2125”. The Reserve Bank of India issued a guidelines in which items 21 to 25 are payment stopped by attachment order, payment stopped by Court order, withdrawal stopped owing to death of account holder, withdrawal stopped owing to lunacy of account holder and withdrawal stopped owing to insolvency of account holder. The respondent also failed to prove that the petitioner's amount was blocked due to any one of the reasons as stated in the guidelines issued by the RBI.

7. He would further submit that in fact, the petitioner filed petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C to call upon the respondent to produce the documents with regard to the accounts maintained by the respondent etc. Further, which was dismissed and he categorically submitted that the respondent arguments that the documents which were called upon the respondent to produce are very much connected with the present impugned cheque issued by the petitioner that is the reason why his account was blocked and not for any reason stated in the memo. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act would not attract as against the petitioner. The petitioner also issued reply notice and thereby call upon the respondent to produce the copy of the cheque. Therefore, the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption which was arisen under Section 139 of NI Act. However, considering the above circumstances, both the Courts below convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the respondent discharged his initial burden as required under Section 138 of NI Act and the petitioner failed to rebut the same by substantial evidence. The petitioner issued reply notice thereby call upon the respondent to produce the copy of the cheque though the petitioner had knowledge that the cheque was returned for the reason “ Account Blocked Situation Covered 2125”, the petitioner did not even whisper anything in the reply notice in fact, received his right to sent further reply. After sending copy of the cheque and the same was duly acknowledged by the petitioner. Even then the petitioner did not reply for the rejoinder sent by the respondent. Therefore, the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner an