A complainant's debt recovery under the Negotiable Instruments Act relies on established presumptions, rendering the accused's claims of improper notice or lack of financial capacity irrelevant unless effectively rebutted.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.1843 of 2017 dated 06.08.2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act.

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

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

4. The case of the complainant is that the accused having close acquaintance with the complainant approached him on 18.03.2016 and demanded a loan of Rs.6 lakhs to meet out his urgent family expenses agreeing to repay the same within a month and the complainant, believing the words of the accused, advanced a loan of Rs.6 lakhs on that day, for which, the accused issued a postdated cheque dated 18.04.2016 drawn on Canara Bank, Tiruchendur Branch for Rs.6 lakhs in favour of the complainant requesting him to present the cheque and get the amount. The complainant presented the cheque through his banker Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Udankudi Branch on 18.04.2016 but the cheque was returned dishonored as funds insufficient vide bank memo dated 20.04.2016 and the same was informed to the complainant by banker's memo dated 06.05.2016. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.05.2016 demanding the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque and the accused having received the legal notice on 19.05.2016, neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint against the accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI 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.1843 of 2017 and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of 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.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 4 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. 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 06.08.2022, holding that the complainant has not proved the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted him 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 S.T.C.No. 1843 of 2017 dated 06.08.2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.

9. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deal with statutory presumptions, “Section 118 : Presumptions as to negotiable instruments, - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) of consideration – that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrume