The appellate court overturned the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejecting the accused's claims due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.241 of 2014, dated 02.04.2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

4.The complainant's case : The complainant having good acquittance with the accused used to advance loans to him. The complainant, who was possessing Mahendra Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-20- Q-0718 belonging to his father-in-law, agreed to sell it to the accused and the accused agreed to settle the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- due to Srithandapani Finance and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. The accused, for paying the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, issued two cheques, one bearing No.000101 dated 22.03.2014 for Rs.10,000/- and other bearing No.000108, dated 27.03.2014 for Rs.1,90,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank. The accused had taken the vehicle for making some alterations and gave it to Srikumaran Motors at Sattur Road, Sivakasi. The accused informed the complainant that since the bank financial year was ending, requested to present the cheque on 10.04.2014 and promised that the cheque would be honored. The complainant believing the words of the accused, presented the cheque for collection through his Bank of Baroda, Sivakasi, but the cheque was returned dishonored as 'funds insufficient'. The complainant sent a legal notice, dated 25.04.2014, demanding the amount covered by the cheque of the accused for his residential as well as office address and having received the both notices, the accused sent a reply notice with false and untenable allegations. Since the accused has not paid the amount within the stipulated period, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint for the alleged offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case, took the case on file in C.C.No.241 of 2014 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of the records were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., on free of cost. When the accused was questioned about the offence alleged against him, he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The accused adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

7.The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 02.04.2018 holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

8.Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.241 of 2014, dated 02.04.2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, is liable to be set aside ? is the point for consideration.

9.Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer Section 118 (a) and 139 of the Ne