A presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of the N.I. Act arises when the cheque is admitted but may be rebutted by the accused, necessitating substantial evidence against it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 23.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.No.701 of 2015 Zahir B.Irani ... Appellant Vs.

Babu Raj ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.4983 of 2010 dated 10.10.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai-600 001 and allow the above appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.B.Balanchander for Mr.Ashok Menon For Respondent : Dr.V.Suresh JUDGMENT The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent in C.C.No.4983 of 2010 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai (trial Court) and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 10.10.2015. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed.

2.Gist of the case is that the appellant and the respondent are known to each other. The respondent approached the appellant for financial assistance to meet his urgent expenditure and borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In discharge of liability, the respondent issued a cheque (Ex.P2) No.396336 dated 06.04.2010 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the appellant drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Second Line Beach, Chennai on undertaking that the cheque (Ex.P2) would be presented for collection in the last week of July 2010. As per the undertaking the cheque (Ex.P2) presented with the appellant’s bank viz., Axis Bank, Anna Salai, Chennai on 30.07.2010, the same dishonoured and returned for the reason “Payment stopped by the Drawer” on 31.07.2010. Thereafter, the appellant issued a statutory notice (Ex.P4) dated 10.08.2010 which was not received by the respondent and returned on 16.08.2010 with an endorsement “Intimation Delivered and Unclaimed”. Following the procedures, the complaint filed before the trial Court by the power of attorney Mr.Bomman M.Irani.

3.During trial, the power of attorney Mr.Bomman M.Irani examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence, no witness examined but marked Exs.D1 to D4. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to note the fact that the respondent not denied the cheque (Ex.P2) and his signature in it, but taken a stand the there was tenancy dispute between the appellant and the respondent and a civil case (R.C.O.P.No.452 of 2011) was filed by the appellant against the respondent in June, 2011 for default in payment of monthly rent from January 2010, hence, the question of the respondent approaching the appellant for a loan in April 2010 and thereafter issuing the cheque (Ex.P2) does not arise. He further submitted that since the civil suit filed in June 2011 and after receipt of summons from the civil Court, the cheque, which was given as security at the time of entering tenancy, filled up and projected as though the cheque (Ex.P2) issued by the respondent in discharge of legally enforceable liability or debt, is not proper. The trial Court holding that the respondent probablized his defence by producing Exs.D1 to D4 [(i)the petition copy in R.C.O.P.No.452 of 2011, (ii)summons from civil Court, (iii)Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent and other document], is not proper. When the respondent not denied the issuance of cheque (Ex.P2) and his signature, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 & 139 of N.I. Act comes into play. In this case, the respondent neither sent the r