When a drawer admits their signature on a cheque, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is triggered. Filling in the cheque by a third party is immaterial, and the accused's failure to respond to a legal notice significantly weakens their rebuttal of the statutory presumption.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.51 of 2013, dated 21.08.2018 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.Admittedly, the complainant is the manufacturer of the paper tubes and the accused is doing paper cutting business and there existed business relationship between them.

5. The case of the complainant is that on 01.03.2011, the accused borrowed a loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant and executed a promissory note as a security. On repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.700289 drawn on Axis Bank, Sivakasi Branch for Rs.4 lakhs, dated 01.11.2012 towards discharge the part of the loan amount due by him. The complainant presented the cheque through her bankers Union Bank of India, Thiruthangal Branch, but the same was returned as funds insufficient vide bankers memo, dated 06.11.2012. The complainant sent a legal notice, dated 03.12.2012 to the accused demanding him to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The accused, having received the notice on 06.12.2012, neither sent any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint.

6.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.51 of 2013 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.

7. During trial, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and Thiru.Marimuthu, Assistant Bank Manager of Axis Bank as P.W.2 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.

8. 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 21.08.2018, 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.

9. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.51 of 2013, dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, is liable to be set aside ? is the point for consideration.

10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer Section 118 (a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deal with the statutory presumption.

“118. ...

(a) of consideration ; that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed,