CRL A/803/2019 of K.RAMESH KUMAR Vs P.SIVANANDHAN on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment passed in Crl. A.No.407 of 2017 dated 21.12.2018 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and towards discharge of the said liability, he has issued a cheque for the said sum on 05.01.2016; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ and that in spite of statutory notice, the respondent did not make any payment.

3. Before the Trial Court, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The Trial Court found that the appellant had established the foundational facts and the respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption and held the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent challenged the said judgment holding him guilty before the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who, by the judgment in Crl.A.407 of 2017 dated 21.12.2018, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved complainant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent had not replied to the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; that he had not let in any evidence and had not marked any documents and that the findings of the Appellate Court that since the appellant had not produced the income tax returns, the statutory presumption has been rebutted is contrary to the settled legal position and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

5. Though the learned Counsel had entered appearance for the respondent/accused, he remained absent and hence, this Court appointed Mr.K.Ethirajalu, Legal Aid Counsel to represent the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of acquittal cannot be ordinarily interfered with unless it is found to be perverse; that the judgment is not perverse inasmuch as the learned Judge held that the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption and that the appellant had not proved his financial capacity to lend such a huge sum to the respondent.

6. This Court finds that the respondent had not denied his signature in the cheque. The respondent had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the appellant. Thus, the appellant had established the foundational facts to draw the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The only defence of the respondent is that the appellant had not established his capacity to lend such a huge amount. The respondent had not explained as to how the appellant came in possession of the cheque, which is admittedly signed by the respondent. In fact, in the cross-examination, learned counsel for the respondent suggested to the appellant, who was examined as P.W.1, that the cheque was handed over to the appellant as security for a loan obtained by one Raj Kumar. The respondent had not chosen to examine the said Raj Kumar. Having admitted that the cheque was in fact handed over to the appellant, this Court is of the view that the respondent ought to have elicited further information and established that there was no liability to make payment to the appellant. The answers elicited by the respondent’s counsel in the cross-examination of P.W.1 are not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The judgment of the Trial Court that the respondent had not rebutted the statutory presumption is justified. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Judge holding the respondent not guilty of the offence is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.

7. The respondent is, therefore, guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Interest of justice would be met if the respondent is sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

8. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.407 of 2017 on the file of III- Additional District and Sessions Court at Coimbatore dated 21.12.2018 is set aside and the conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court No.1 Coimbatore in C.C.No.425 of 2016 dated 14.11.2017 is confirmed and the sentence is partly modified to the effect that ‘the accused is sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment’. The respondent/accused shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused and commit him to prison to serve the sentence imposed by this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

9. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai, shall pay the scheduled fees to the learned Legal Aid Counsel, who appeared for the respondent in this appeal. 13.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi/nm To

1. The III-Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore.

3. The Secretary,

Madras High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Madras. SUNDER MOHAN, J. mmi

CRL A No. 803 of 2019 13.10.2026