Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the signature on a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden to the accused. Such presumption can only be rebutted by cogent evidence, not by mere assertions regarding the nature of the cheque.

ORDER

1. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruppur (Trial Court) vide judgment, dated 19.09.2022 in C.C.No.301 of 2015 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short 'The Act') and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.139 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on 06.10.2023 confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

2. Gist of the case is that the complainant viz., Mrs.Thara Devi (Died) is the Authorized person of M/s.Cottons Gallery, a Proprietorship concern and to prosecute the petitioner. After filing the complaint, Mrs.Thara Devi passed away, hence her husband Ramesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Cotton Gallery substituted and continued the prosecution against the petitioner.

3. M/s.Cottons Gallery is in the wholesale business of manufacturing and dealing with textile clothes. For urgent and family requirement, the petitioner requested loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent. The respondent gave loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner on various occasions through Bank from 19.08.2011 to 10.10.2011 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the petitioner executed promissory note (Ex.P1). When the respondent demanded repayment of the loan, the petitioner in discharge of principal amount liability, issued cheque, dated 20.05.2013 (Ex.P2) drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruppur Branch. When the said cheque presented for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement 'Account Closed' vide bank return memo, dated 02.06.2013 (Ex.P3). Thereafter, statutory notice (Ex.P4), dated 26.07.2013 issued to the petitioner. The petitioner received the same on 27.07.2013. Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgement card. The petitioner with false allegations sent a reply (Ex.P6), dated 10.08.2013. The respondent produced the GST Registration Certificate, dated 14.12.2016 (Ex.P7), the statement of bank account for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 (Ex.P8), the bank statement (Ex.P9) to confirm the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and Income Tax Returns (Ex.P10).

3. During trial, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked ten documents Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the petitioner/defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is running indigenous chit in which the petitioner and her husband were subscribers and they were successful bidders. During the chit transaction, promissory note (Ex.P1) was obtained by the respondent wherein lot of corrections made. He further submitted that in this case, statement of bank account for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 (Ex.P8), the bank statement (Ex.P9) to confirm the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and Income Tax Returns (Ex.P10) not properly certified by the concerned authorities. The cheque (Ex.P2) is a Non-CTS Cheque which was received during chit transacti