Presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act holds until proven otherwise, and failures in discharging this burden lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT

The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in S.T.C.No.65 of 2015 before the learned II Additional District Munsif, Bhavani (trial Court) against the respondent/accused. The trial Court by judgment dated 10.01.2017 convicted the respondent and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months, for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhavani (lower appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.39 of 2017 and the same was allowed by judgment dated 21.02.2018 setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.For clarity, the appellant and respondent are referred to as complainant and accused respectively as per the complaint.

3.Gist of the case is that the complainant and accused are friends, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant on 27.11.2012 for his urgent expenses and undertook to repay the same within a month. In discharge of liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.909287 (Ex.P1), dated 27.12.2012 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Bhavani Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque (Ex.P1) for encashment through his bank i.e., Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Bhavani Branch on 12.03.2013, the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 13.03.2013 vide return memo (Ex.P2). Thereafter, the statutory notice (Ex.P3) dated 08.04.2013 issued to the accused who received the same and sent a reply (Ex.P5) on 10.04.2013 with vexatious allegations, annoyed over the same, the complaint filed before the trial Court.

4.During trial, the complainant examined as PW1 and the Bank Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Bhavani Branch examined as PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, the accused examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.D1 & D2. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and the lower appellate Court had set aside the conviction. As against the acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

5.The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Shr.Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 mandates the existence of legal debt or liability. The accused contention is that he never borrowed any loan from the complainant and issued any cheque favouring the complainant. He further contended that the complainant came in possession of the cheque in question (Ex.P1) from one Perumal with whom, accused had a chit transaction in the year 2008. The chit transaction was completed with Perumal in the year 2012 and, when the accused asked for return of the security cheque, Perumal informed that the cheque misplaced. This contention was exposed as false during the trial. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused disputed the signature in the cheque (Ex.P1). However, in this case, PW2, Bank Manager of Karur Vysya Bank where the accused maintains his account, confirmed signature found in the cheque (Ex.P1) is that of the accused, the accused not cross examined the Bank Manager/PW2. Further, both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court gave a clear finding that the signature found in the cheque (Ex.P1), the signature of the accus