The court found that the accused, acting as guarantors, were not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as no enforceable debt existed at the time of cheque issuance.

ORDER :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioners have filed these Revision petitions, prays to set aside the judgement in Crl.A.Nos.483, 478, 476, 473, 475, 477 & 474 of 2023, respectively dated 04.08.2025 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the sentence imposed in C.C.Nos.1641, 3204, 3202, 1640, 1636, 1638 and 1639 of 2019, respectively, dated 04.08.2023 by the learned Metropolitan Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai.

2. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the accused persons / petitioners have preferred these Criminal Revisions.

3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , stating that the act of the accused persons attracts an offence punishable under of the . Accordingly, cognizance was taken, summons were issued to the accused persons and, after appearance, copies were furnished. They denied the offences and the trial commenced. On the side of the complainant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. Court documents Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked.

4. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge held that the complainant had prima facie established his case against the petitioners. The requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were duly complied with. The petitioners failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to probabilise his defence. Accordingly, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine. Further, compensation equivalent to the cheque amount was directed to be paid to the complainant, with a default clause. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused persons preferred an appeal, however, the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

5. Brief facts of the complaint:

According to the respondent/complainant, in the year 2016, each of the petitioners approached him and requested a loans of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,50,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.6,25,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.6,50,000/-, respectively for their personal needs. The complainant arranged and paid the said amount on 30.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 15.09.2016, 06.05.2016, 18.06.2016, 04.07.2016 and 25.10.2026, respectively, for which the petitioners agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum until repayment of the loans.

6. The petitioners paid only a sum of Rs.87,500/-, Rs.1,13,250/-, Rs.98,500/- Rs.1,16,000/-, Rs.1,15,625/-, Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/-, respectively, and thereafter defaulted in repayment despite repeated requests made by the complainant. In discharge of the above liability, the petitioners issued the subject cheques dated 20.07.2018, 21.07.2018, 21.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 21.07.2018, 21.07.2018 and 20.07.2018, respectively. When the cheques were presented for collection, it was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Subsequently, the petitioners requested the complainant to re-present the cheques assuring that arrangements would be made to honour the same. Accordingly, the cheques were again presented on 08.10.2018, 28.08.2018, 28.08.2018, 08.10.2018, 08.10.2018,08.10.2018 and 08.10.2018 respectively, however, it was once again returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

7. With mala fide intention to defraud the complainant, the petitioners had issued the cheques with dishonest intention. Therefore, the act of the petitioners amounts to commission of an offence under Section 138 of the N