O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the conviction order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.72 of 2016 dated 24.03.2017, confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore in C.C.No.312 of 2014 (Old STC No.185 of 2009) dated 25.04.2016.

2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore on the complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.312 of 2014 by judgment dated 25.04.2016 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.72 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 24.03.2017, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction order passed by the trial Court, as against which, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the cheque-Ex.P2 was not given for discharge of any liability. The petitioner had never taken any loan from the first respondent. The first respondent was earlier running a chit fund finance company. The petitioner subscribed for the chit in the year 2005. At that time, he handed over the signed blank cheque and pro-note as security, which is the normal practice followed in the private chit fund. To prove the same, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one V.Subramanian, Manager, UCO Bank as D.W.2. The petitioner denies the writings in the cheque. The first respondent/complainant in his evidence admits that there is a variation in the ink colour of the signature and the writings in the cheque/Ex.P2. The pro-note/Ex.P1 was also marked on objection. Exs.P1 and P2 were handed over in blank by the petitioner. The subscription of the petitioner to the chit run by the first respondent, is also admitted. The first respondent was running a chit fund in the name and style of M/s.Praveenath Chits. The revision petitioner joined the chit in the year 2003. At that time, the first respondent received one signed pro-note and blank cheque from the petitioner for safety and security purpose. The Bank Manager/D.W.2 confirms that the Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Revised Signature Card of the petitioner were not available in the Bank. But he had produced the Specimen Signature Card with regard to the another account of the petitioner, which was marked as Ex.D4. 4. Both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence and materials, on the other hand, it was merely held that the signature has not been denied, hence statutory presumption under Section 139 gets attracted and accordingly the petitioner was convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarized the principles enumerated by the Apex Court with regard to Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as below:

“25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section

139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebuttting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be d