Rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act displaced by accused probabilising defence via cross-examination on complainant's wherewithal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 24.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.No.972 of 2022 S.Motcha Rackini ... Appellant Vs.

Jayanthi ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruvannamalai in S.T.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 15.09.2021 and allow this appeal by convicting the respondent/accused to maximum sentence and impose fine double the amount of cheque payable to the complainant.

For Appellant : Mr.I.Abdul Basith For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajarajan JUDGMENT The appellant as complainant filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act) against the respondent in S.T.C.No.98 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court) Tiruvannamalai. The Trial Court by judgment dated 15.09.2021 dismissed the complaint. Against which, the present appeal is filed.

2.The complaint against the respondent filed before the Trial Court is that the appellant working as Headmistress in Naidumangalam Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, the respondent was also a Teacher and hence, they had a cordial relationship. Their respective spouses were also Teachers and known to each other. The respondent for family requirements borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the appellant and in repayment of the same, issued a cheque bearing No.162581 for Rs.15,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Naidumangalam Branch dated 17.02.2013. The respondent assured that there would be sufficient balance in the bank to present the cheque and encash it. Thereafter, the appellant presented the cheque in State Bank of India on 11.03.2013. But the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason “Insufficient funds”. The appellant caused a legal notice on 18.03.2013. The respondent replied with false averments and hence, ignoring the same complaint filed. During trial, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. PW2 is the Bank Manager of Indian Bank. On the side of the defence, the bank account of accused was marked as Ex.X1. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Against which, the present appeal filed.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent not denied the issuance of cheque and her signature, she only takes a stand that the cheque was issued for a hand loan borrowed earlier, but the respondent neither examined herself nor brought any materials on record to show that what was the earlier borrowing and how it was repaid, no details furnished. Hence, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act comes into play. The appellant was cross examined in detail and raised a doubt on the transaction citing that during the relevant period, the appellant’s husband gave a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent's husband and hence no loan could have been given. Further, with regard to loan of Rs.15,00,000/- the appellant had given the details, how she had mobilised such a huge amount. The appellant and her husband both are earning Rs.52,000/- per month and they are Teachers for more than 25 years. They also own 6 acres of agricultural land and further in the year 2011, LIC policy got matured and she received Rs.12,40,000/-, apart from it she availed jewel loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and these amounts were kept with her to purchase a property. Since a known teacher asked for urgent help, the amount was given as a loan. Further, the appellant also gave denominations of notes given as loan. The appellant marked nine documents, of which Ex.P6 is the Indian Bank st