A presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a cheque is admitted to be signed by the accused, and the defense of loss must be convincingly substantiated to rebut this presumption.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2023 dated 23.07.2024, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai, in C.C. No.389 of 2014 dated 06.04.2023, in and by which the revision petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years, and further directed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C ., 1973, in default to undergo eight months simple imprisonment.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused before the learned trial Court. The respondent is the complainant.

II. Factual Background:

3. The complainant, his father, and his wife are practising dentists at Tenkasi. The accused/revision petitioner is an advocate at Tenkasi.

4. Genesis of Complaint:

The accused had been running an auction chit scheme at Tenkasi. The complainant joined the chit in 2011. Since the accused was in need of money to run the chit fund scheme, he approached the complainant for a loan. In response, the complainant paid (i) Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 03.10.2011 and (ii) Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) on 14.12.2011 by pledging the jewels of his wife and his father. Thereafter, the accused received a loan of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) through self-cheques of the complainant’s father and wife. In such sequence, during 03.10.2011 to 2013, the accused borrowed a total of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) from the complainant.

5. A dispute arose in May 2014 regarding repayment of the matured chit amount. On the complainant’s police complaint, the accused paid Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and agreed to pay the balance within three months, but defaulted. On demand for repayment of Rs.10,50,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), the accused issued Cheque No.001182 dated 01.07.2014 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) drawn on Axis Bank, Ilanji Branch, Tenkasi, in favour of the complainant. As instructed by the accused, the complainant presented the cheque during the first week of August 2014 through his banker HDFC Bank, Tenkasi, on 05.08.2014. The cheque was returned on 09.08.2014 with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Debit advice was received on 12.08.2014.

6. A statutory notice was issued on 01.09.2014, followed by a rejoinder on 04.09.2014. Despite service/acknowledgment, the accused neither replied nor paid. Alleging issuance of cheque without sufficient funds and commission of offence under Section 138 NI Act, 1881, the private complaint was filed.

III. Proceedings Before Trial Court:

7. Cognizance and Trial:

The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, took the complaint on file after recording sworn statement and issued summons. On appearance, copies were furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C ., 1973. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. Complainant examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P1 to P35. After complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C . 1973; he denied incriminating circumstances and opted to lead defence evidence. He examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R18.

8. Defence Version:

The accused denied conduc