In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the accused admits the issuance of the cheque but fails to produce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt, the conviction is legally sound.

Order

This revision has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in C.A.No.57 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.C.No.460 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruppur, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The petitioner is the accused on the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2.5lakhs as hand loan on 10.09.2017 for his urgent family and business expenses and he also agreed to pay this within one year. In order to repay the amount, he issued a cheque dated 01.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the same was presented for collection, the cheque was returned dishonoured on 12.12.2018 for the reason ‘Payment stopped by drawer”. Hence the respondent filed a complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. In order to prove the complaint, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A6 have been marked. on the side of the accused, no documents have been marked to disprove the complaint.

3.After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also awarded compensation of the cheque amount. Aggrieved over the same, appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this revision.

4.The petitioner raised grounds that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not at all maintainable. Further, no loan was borrowed by the petitioner. The cheque was misused by the 2^nd respondent as if the accused borrowed money and presented the same for collection. Further, the cheque was filled in the name of Mr.Suresh and the same was presented. The respondent is the Proprietor, however, the respondent failed to produce any document to show that the respondent is the Proprietor of M/s. Sham Designers. Therefore, the petitioner categorically rebutted the presumption as contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Even then the Trial Court mechanically convicted the accused.

5.On perusal of the records, it reveals that in order to rebut the presumptions, the petitioner did not elucidate anything from the cross examination of PW1. The accused did not examine anybody and no document have been filed. On the other hand, the respondent discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt the accused did not deny the cheque and also the issuance of cheque. Therefore, the respondent has discharged his initial burden and presumed that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt, when it was rebutted by the accused herein. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the same was rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court.

6.That apart, at the time of admission, this Court while suspending the sentence impugned conditions to deposit 50% of the cheque amount but the petitioner did not comply with the same sofar. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are confirmed. Hence, this revision fails. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Case is dismissed.