Payment of cheque amounts to admission of liability under negotiable instruments law.

O R D E R

The petitioner/accused was prosecuted by the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.203 of 2016. The trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2020 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.18,88,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.96 of 2020 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 08.02.2022, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, against which, the present revision is filed.

2.The case against the petitioner is that on 09.03.2015, the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.18,88,000/- from the respondent/complainant to meet his urgent family and business requirement and agreed to repay the same with 12% interest. The petitioner also executed a demand promissory note but failed to repay the money as agreed. After repeated demands, on 29.09.2015, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.18,88,000/- favouring the respondent/complainant, which was presented and returned as ‘Funds Insufficient’. Thereafter, statutory notice issued and following the procedure complaint filed.

3.During trial, the respondent/complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the defence, the petitioner neither examined any witness nor filed any documents. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same as stated above.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner had never taken any loan from the respondent and he had not filled up the cheque and handed over to the respondent. The cheque was given to one Sathish for some other transaction and the same had come in possession of the respondent, who filled up the cheque and projected a false case against the petitioner. Further the respondent has no wherewithal to pay such huge amount of Rs.18,88,000/- to the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent proved that the petitioner received statutory notice but not sent any reply. In this case though it was claimed that cheque was given to one Sathish, the said Sathish not examined as witness and no steps taken to examine him. The respondent is doing business and having sufficient income. His wife is employed at Pricol Industries and for the purpose of constructing a house, an amount of Rs.18,88,000/- kept with him and at the request of the petitioner, loan was given and the petitioner also not denied the cheque and signature. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner and the Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same.

6.Be that as it may. Now an understanding reached between the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner agreed to pay the cheque amount. Earlier the petitioner filed petitions seeking suspension of sentence and exemption from surrender in Crl.M.P.Nos.4730 and 4732 of 2022, respectively. This Court, by order dated 25.04.2022, granted suspension of sentence to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner to deposit 50% of the cheque amount, i.e., Rs.9,44,000/-. Pursuant to which, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.19817 of 2022 seeking to permit the petitioner to deposit the conditional amount. This Court, by order dated 09.01.2023 permitted the petitioner to deposit the conditional amount on or before 30.01.2023. In compliance to the same, the petitioner had taken Demand Draft bearing No.735903 drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, District Court Branch, Coimbatore on 25.01.2023 and deposited to the credit of C.C.No.203 of 2016 before th