The presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted without substantial evidence, leading to conviction under Section 138.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 27.08.2024, passed in Crl.A.No.114 of 2023, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Thanjavur, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 21.03.2023, passed in STC.No.136 of 2018, by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as seen from the materials available on record, are that that the Revision Petitioner/Accused had a business at Malaysia and the Respondent/Complainant is having licence to send articles to Malaysia. In a business transaction between them, for the articles sent by the Respondent, the Revision Petitioner had issued a cheque, bearing No.781062, dated 20.01.2018, for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirappalli. When the said cheque was presented for encashment on 25.01.2018, it was dishonoured for the reason “Insufficient Funds”. The Respondent had issued a legal notice, dated 14.02.2018, for which, a reply notice, dated 26.02.2018 was sent by the Revision Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent had filed a complaint in STC.No.136 of 2018 before the Trial Court, against the Revision Petitioner, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for recovery of the cheque amount.

3. After completion of trial, by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, the Trial Court, drawing a legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque in question was drawn to discharge the legally enforceable debt, as the Revision Petitioner/ accused has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, being the cheque amount, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 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 of the Trial Court, by the accused, on the same lines. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/ accused.

4. This Court heard Ms.V.Muthulakshmi, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ accused and Ms.Ayisha Siddique for Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant and considered their submissions and also perused the entire materials placed on record.

5. In this case, the total amount covered under the cheque in question is Rs. 3,00,000/-. When this Criminal Revision Case, along with the application in Crl.MP.No.11526 of 2024 for suspension of sentence, came up for admission on an earlier occasion on 28.10.2024, before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it was represented by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the Revision Petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/-, for which, a copy of receipt, dated 31.05.2023 is also annexed with the paper book at page No.97.

6. In the application in Crl.MP.No.11526 of 2024, seeking suspension of sentence, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated, 28.10.2024, had passed the following order:-

“The above petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District in STC.No.136 of 2018, dated 21.03.2023, which was confirmed by the learned I Additional District and