Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SHAMIM AHMED, J
K. Balachandran – Appellant
Versus
R. Vallinayagam – Respondent
CRL RC(MD) NO. 1350 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.14821 and 14823 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Muthu Malai Raja
For Respondent(s): Mr.Abrar Ahmed for Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt arises under Section 139 when the accused does not deny the issuance or dishonor of a cheque.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 139 - Conviction under Section 138 upheld - Accused issued cheque for an amount due as per financial transactions - Cheque bounced due to insufficient funds - Trial court found presumption of liability in favor of complainant was not rebutted by the accused - Appeal dismissed with conviction confirmed. (Para 20)
(B) Evidence - Presumption under Section 139 for the existence of a legally enforceable debt holds where accused does not deny cheque issuance, signature, or dishonor (Paras 10-12).
Facts of the case:
Complainant lent substantial amount to accused; cheque issued for repayment dishonored, prompting criminal complaint.
Findings of Court:
Courts found merit in complainant's credibility, supported by evidence presented.
Issues: Key issue focused on the failure of accused to rebut presumption of debt.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts emphasized that non-denial of cheque issuance leads to presumptive liability, as reiterated in key judgments.
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim and transaction background leading to the cheque issuance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsels presented arguments regarding liability and proof of debt. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court discussed the established presumption under section 139. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court reiterated procedural importance and presumptions regarding cheque validity. (Para 11 , 18) |
| 5. final dismissal of the revision case by confirming prior judgments. (Para 20) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 02.09.2025, passed in C.A.No.119 of 2023, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 25.10.2023, passed in STC.No.172 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, (Magisterial Level), Nagercoil.
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 Respondent/Complainant was having business transactions with the Revision Petitioner/Accused for the past several years, during which period, the Respondent/Complainant was giving financial assistance to the Revision Petitioner/Accused, by way of cash as well as through bank transaction and that in this regard, an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- is due to the Respondent/Complainant. To discharge the said debt, the Revision Petitioner/Accused had issued a cheque, bearing No.020912, dated 25.01.2020, for a sum Rs.13,50,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Saligramam Branch, Chennai in favour of the Respondent/Complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment on 27.01.2020, the same was returned with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant had issued a notice, dated 07.02.2020, to the Revision Petitioner/Accused and on receipt of such notice, the Revision Petitioner/accused sent a reply on 21.02.2020. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant had filed a complaint in STC.No.172 of 2020 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.
b) The signature of the Revision Petitioner/Accused on the cheque, bearing No. 020912, dated 25.01.2020, for a sum Rs.13,50,000/-, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Saligrammam Branch, Chennai, issued by the Revision Petitioner/Accused, in favour of the Respondent/Complainant towards the discharge of liability to the tune of Rs. 13,50,000/- was not denied.
c) 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 one year simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The lower appellate court, by its impugned judgement, dated 02.09.2025, by confirming the conviction and sentence, had dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Accused.
3.On 22.10.2025, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court had passed the following order:-
“This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.119 of 2023, dated 02.09.2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the judgment in S.T.C.No.172 of 2020, dated 25.10.2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Leve
