CRL RC/1651/2022 of BASKAR Vs VISWANATHAN on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case challenges the judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in C.A.No.32 of 2021 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment dated 02.08.2021 of the learned Judicial

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentencing the petitioner to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent herein.

2. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner had obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-; that towards discharge of the said loan, he had issued a cheque on 05.06.2017 for the said sum; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned with an endorsement stating ‘funds insufficient’; and that despite the statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment.

3. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3.

4. The trial Court found that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption, found him guilty, and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The appellate Court confirmed the findings and the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheque was not issued towards the discharge of any liability; that the cheque was given

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

as a security for the loan obtained by one Selvaraj for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-; that the cheque given as security for the loan was misused by the respondent and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was filled; and that in the prosecution launched by this respondent against the said Selvaraj in C.C.No.78 of 2017, the trial Court acquitted the said Selvaraj. He would further submit that the findings in the said judgment should enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well; that the respondent had not proved his capacity to lend a sum of Rs.5 lakhs; and therefore, the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption.

6. Since the respondent had not appeared despite the service of notice, this Court appointed Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, as the Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the trial Court had considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner herein, including the capacity of the respondent to lend a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and had also discussed the prosecution launched against one Selvaraj in C.C.No.78 of 2017 and rightly held that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption. He would further submit that the respondent had proved the foundational facts for drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and since the petitioner had not rebutted the same, the concurrent findings are not liable to be set aside.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

8. As stated about, the respondent had examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1, the dishonoured cheque, Ex.P2, the return memo issued by the bank, Ex.P3, the statutory notice and Ex.P4, reply sent by the petitioner.

9. The petitioner examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3, being his income tax returns and bank statements.

10. The primary defence of the petitioner is that he had no financial transaction with the respondent; that he had given a signed blank cheque to the respondent as security for the loan obtained by Selvaraj from the respondent; that the respondent misused the blank cheques given by the petitioner and Selvaraj, filled them for Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs respectively; that the respondent had initiated a prosecution against the said Selvaraj in C.C.No.78 of 2017; and that the said Selvaraj was acquitted.

11. However, the petitioner had not let in evidence to substantiate his version that the cheque in question was issued only as security for the repayment of the loan obtained by one Selvaraj. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.78 of 2017 filed by the respondent against the said Selvaraj would be of no avail to the petitioner.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

12. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent had no capacity to lend a sum of Rs.5lakhs to the petitioner. However, the capacity of the respondent to lend the money has been discussed by the trial Court and the trial Court found that the respondent was an income tax assessee and his returns revealed that he had the capacity to lend money to the petitioner. There is no evidence to the contrary let in by the petitioner.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the respondent had established the foundational facts and the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption, the findings and the sentence imposed by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

15. The High Court Legal Services Authority shall pay the scheduled remuneration to Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent. 29-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

To

1. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )

CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022

SUNDER MOHAN, J. ham CRL RC No. 1651 of 2022 29-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 08:47:17 pm )