The court emphasized that once a cheque's execution is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the cheque was not for consideration, highlighting the importance of statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in C.C.No.659 of 2017, dated 17.10.2019, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

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

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

4. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are family friends and the accused approached the complainant on 18.05.2015 and borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant for her expenses and to clear the family debts and in order to discharge the said loan, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.275202 dated 18.06.2015 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Madurai Branch on the date of borrowal, assuring that the said cheque will be honoured. The complainant presented the cheque for collection on 23.06.2015 through his bank Pandian Grama Bank at Erichanatham, but the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.07.2015 to the accused directing him to pay the amount covered by the cheque and the accused having received the said notice, neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the 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 S.T.C.No. 1945 of 2015 for the offence under Section 138 of the 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 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. When the accused was questioned about the offence alleged against him, he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.659 of 2017.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Muniappan as P.W.2 and the Manager of the Axis Bank, Sivakasi Branch Thiru.Kalyana Sundaram as P.W.3 and exhibited 5 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5. The accused examined herself as D.W.1 and exhibited 3 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.3.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2019 holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted her under Section 255(1) 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.659 of 2017, dated 17.10.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.

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

(a) of considerati