Accused failed to rebut Section 139 NI Act presumption with probable defence; conviction upheld due to unchallenged cheque issuance and no proof of repayment or misuse.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.805 of 2022 A.Gopal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.R.Thangapandi

2.State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore District – 641 018. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.95 of 2019 dated 25.04.2022 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum in default to undergo a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months passed in C.C.No.265 of 2014 dated

13.02.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate,Fast Track No.2 at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For R1 : Mr.S.T.Raja for M/s.Omsairam Advocates For R2 : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER The petitioner/accused on a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) faced trial in C.C.No.265 of 2014. The Trial Court by judgment dated 13.02.2019 convicted he petitioner and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with 6% interest as compensation, in default, to undergo, three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.95 of 2019. The Lower Appellate Court by judgment dated 25.04.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision filed.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as complainant and the accused.

3.The accused is known to the complainant. The accused approached the complainant and requested hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his urgent requirement and promised that the said amount will be repaid within a period of three months. On this assurance, Rs.5,00,000/- hand loan was given on 12.04.2013. Thereafter, in discharge of the said liability, a cheque bearing No.025127 dated 27.08.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Vadavalli Branch for Rs.5,00,000/- was issued by the petitioner. This cheque was deposited by the respondent in his bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Vadavalli Branch on 27.08.2013 and it was returned for the reason “Insufficient funds”. Thereafter, statutory notice issued on 14.09.2013 received by the petitioner on 20.09.2013. The petitioner neither paid the cheque amount nor sent any reply. Thereafter, complaint filed. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked four documents, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P2 is the bank memo, Ex.P3 is the statutory notice and Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment card. The accused examined two witnesses, DW1/father of the accused and the accused himself as DW2, but not marked any documents. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner, confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent admits he is having a cellphone shop and when suggested he was into finance business, charging exorbitant interest and police complaint pending against him, he denied the same. According to the petitioner, the respondent is running finance business charging exorbitant interest. The respondent admits that Rs.5,00,000/- is a huge amount to him. Thus, how the respondent had mobilized Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and gave loa