BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 24.06.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.R.C.(MD) No.393 of 2017 Jeyaseelan : Petitioner Vs.

Chandran : Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court-Sessions Court, Nagercoil in Crl.A.No.67 of 2011, dated 21.01.2017 by modifying the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil in S.T.C.No.395 of 2005, dated 22.06.2011 and to set aside the same and consequently, acquit the petitioner from the charges under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan For Respondent : No Appearance ***

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case had been filed by the petitioner/accused as against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil in Crl.A.No.67 of 2011, dated 21.01.2017 in modifying the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil in S.T.C.No.395 of 2005, dated 22.06.2011.

2.Heard Mr.A.Balakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of notice to the respondent/complainant, no representation for the respondent/complainant. Therefore, this case was taken up for arguments. 3.The case of the Revision Petitioner is that the complainant does not have the resources to advance huge amount. Further, the signature, that is alleged to have been affixed by the Revision Petitioner herein, was denied at the earliest stage. The same was put in cross examination to the complainant, as PW-1 during the trial. PW-1 denied the same. After completion of evidence on the side of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where also the accused denied the incriminating evidence against him. After 313 Cr.P.C., proceedings, the accused himself had let in evidence as Ex-

D1 to Ex-D4. Ex-D1 is the letter dated 25.04.2004. Ex-D2 is the account note book maintained by the accused. Ex-D3 is sworn statement given by the complainanant in S.T.C.No.395 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, as an indigent person before the learned District Judge, Nagercoil in P.O.P.No.221 of 2006, seeking exemption from paying Court fee, as he is pauper. Ex-D4 is the statutory notice, dated 02.11.2006. 4.The contention of the accused before the learned Trial Judge was that the complainant does not have resources to advance a huge loan amount of Rs.10,40,000/- and he had denied the signature on the cheque. As per Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions are in favour of the complainant, as the cheque was drawn in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the accused had to discharge his burden through rebuttal evidence.

5.Here, the accused had let in evidence as DW-1 and had raised the presumption in his favour that the complainant had no resources to advance a loan of Rs.10,40,000/- in favour of the accused herein. He had not furnished the proof of income for the past several years, as income tax assessment. Under such circumstances, the accused had discharged the burden cast upon him regarding the claim made by the complainant. The evidence of the accused need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough, if he has let in evidence, thereby, raising the probability that the circumstances in the case is more in favour of the accused. Accordingly, he had discharged the burden cast upon him under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by letting in evidence by marking vital documents that the complainant had filed Pauper Original Petition before the learned District Judge, Nagercoil, seeking exemption from paying Court fees stating that he is an indigent person. That will be sufficient to acquit the accused and to dismiss the complaint. Instead, the learned Trial Judge had ignored the p