The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates conviction when the signature on the cheque is admitted, absent evidence of theft or misuse.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Crl.RC(MD).No.1248 of 2025 Crl.MP(MD)Nos.12153 and 12154 of 2025

1. Natarajan, S/o Paramasivam, 1/48C, High School Road, Villathikulam, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District

2. Natarajan, Proprietor, Sakthi Murugan Transport, 9, Kesavankundru Road, Karisalkulam Village Thoothukudi District Revision Petitioners Vs Thennarasu, S/o. Senthamarai, 36, Valampuri Vinayagar Koil Street, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (businesses), to call for the records, relating to the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 22.11.2022, passed in CA.No.113 of 2018, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, at Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 29.08.2018, passed in CC.No.38 of2016, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and to set aside the same.

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja For Respondent : Mr.D.Rajaboobathi ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 22.11.2022, passed in CA.No. 113 of 2018, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, at Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 29.08.2018, passed in CC.No. 38 of2016, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 1^st Revision Petitioner/

accused is the owner of the 2^nd Revision Petitioner Company. The Respondent herein is the complainant, who had filed CC.No.38 of 2016 before the Trial Court, against the Revision Petitioners, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- being the cheque amount, which was borrowed by the accused from the complainant on 04.06.2025.

3. After completion of trial, by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment, drawing a legal presumption under Section 139 of the that the cheque in question was drawn to discharge the legally enforceable debt and that the lower appellate court had also, by its impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dismissed the appeal filed as against the judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, by the accused, on the same lines. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused.

4. This Court heard Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.D.Rajaboobathi, the learned counsel for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

5. According to the Revision Petitioners, the evidence of PW.1, complainant and DW.1 witness, are not in corroborative in nature and the Respondent has not proved the transaction between him and the Revision Petitioners and also the source to pay such huge amount. There is no proof that the Respondent had paid such huge amount to the accused. The cheque in question, which was given as security purpose to DW.1, was stolen and misused by the complainant. Both the courts below have committed errors in not appreciating the evidence in a proper manner and hence, the findings of the courts below are unreasonable and perverse and consequently, the accused is entitled for acquittal, by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

6. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent that once the accused admitted the signature in the chequ