In an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 stands in favor of the payee, and the accused must produce material evidence to rebut it on the preponderance of probability.

PRAYER

To set aside the common judgment passed in Crl.A. Nos. 811, 812 and 813 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025 on the file of XVII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.121 of 2018 dated 02.12.2023 on the file of III Fast Track Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chenani and to allow the above Crl.R.C.s

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the findings of concurrent findings of the courts below in common judgment passed in Crl.A. Nos. 811, 812 and 813 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025 on the file of XVII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.121 of 2018 dated 02.12.2023 on the file of III Fast Track Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chenani, the petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 have preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.

2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.672 of 2024 is the company viz., M/s.Landmark Housing Projects Chennai Pvt. Ltd. and other Revision Petitioners are the Director and Managing Director of A1 company respectively. A3 Bhuvaneswari is wife of A2.

3. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows :-

The complainant, his mother Savithri Naidu, his brother Vikram Naidu and M/s. Match Point Tennis Academy India Pvt. Ltd. have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.07.2004 with the Accused 1 to 3 in their capacity as joint owners of the property measuring 9.08 acres of land in their capacity as joint owners of the property measuring 9.08 acres of land situated at Sholinganallur Village. The original Memorandum of Understanding has been retained by the advocate of accused and the same was not handed over by the advocate of the accused. Hence, the complainant filed the photo copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding. It is his further case that A1 company agreed to pay a sum of Rs.73,50,00,000/- to the complainant and towards their partial liability, the accused company had issued 6 cheques for a sum of Rs.20,01,66,000/-. Subsequently, in discharge of their further liability, the 1st accused company had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.30,23,34,000/- vide Cheque bearing No. 004730 dated 25.09.2017 drawn on Axis Bank, Teynampet Branch. When the same was returned/dishonoured with an endorsement “account closed”, the complainant had issued a statutory notice on 25.10.2017 and filed the present complaint.

4. On issuance of summons, the accused 1 to 3 appeared and they have denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the case was posted for trial. On the side of complainant, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 were marked. On the side of accused, no witness was examined, but the document Ex.D1 sale deed was marked through P.W.1. On completion of prosecution witnesses, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating materials against them. For that, the accused 1 to 3 totally denied the case of prosecution and submitted no witness on their side nor marked any document. Thereafter, on considering both side submissions, the trial judge finally held that the offence as against accused 1 to 3, the complainant proved all the ingredients under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and proved the said offence against A1 to A3. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 were found guilty and convicted. Accordingly, accused 2 and 3 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. The A1 company was ordered to pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant with 6% interest, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one mo