The court reinforced the presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, concluding that failure to rebut this presumption confirms conviction under Section 138.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 27.06.2024, passed in Crl.A.No.11 of 2024, by the Additional District (FTC) Court, Theni, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 01.08.2023, passed in STC.No.13 of 2013, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, FTC, Uthamapalayam.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Case and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

(a)The Revision Petitioner is the accused and the Respondent is the Complainant. It is alleged that the Revision Petitioner/ Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the Respondent/Complainant on 11.09.2022 and to discharge the said debt, the Revision Petitioner/Accused had issued a post dated cheque, bearing No. 692928, dated 07.12.2022, for a sum Rs.8,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Ksrunapuram Panchayat, Koottar, Idukki District, Kerala in favour of the Respondent/Complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment on 09.12.2022, the same was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant had issued a notice, dated 24.12.2022, to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, which was returned, as “Unclaimed”. Hence, the Respondent/Complainant had filed a complaint in STC.No.13 of 2023 before the Trial Court, against the Revision Petitioner/Accused, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for recovery of the cheque amount.

(a)The signature of the Revision Petitioner/Accused on the cheque, bearing No.692928, dated 07.12.2022, for a sum Rs.8,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Ksrunapuram Panchayat, Koottar, Idukki District, Kerala, issued by the Revision Petitioner/Accused, in favour of the Respondent/Complainant towards the discharge of liability to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- was not denied.

3. After completion of trial, by the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, the Trial Court, found that the Revision Petitioner/Accused had not denied the issuance of the cheque in question, the signature found in the cheque in question and also dishonour of the same and that as the Revision Petitioner/Accused has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by letting in valid evidence, had convicted and sentenced the Revision Petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The lower appellate court, by its impugned judgement, had dismissed the appeal filed against the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court by the Revision Petitioner/Accused, summarily, observing that there was no representation on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Accused and that in spite of sufficient time was given to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, the conditions for the grant of suspension of sentence and bail were not complied with by the Revision Petitioner/Accused. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused.

5. On 25.08.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following order:-

“The Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the credit of STC.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court (FTC), Uthamapalayam, on or before 15.09.2025.

2. Post the matter on 18.09.2025, under the caption “for reporting compliance.”

6. Thereafter, on 18.09.2025 when the matter came up for consideration before this C