CRL RC/837/2022 of K.RAVICHANDRAN Vs M/S.SREEVATSA TUBE CORPORATION on 23 September 2026

ORDER

This revision challenges the judgement dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.396 of 2017, confirming the judgement dated 24.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.221 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level-1, Coimbatore, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2(a). The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner was a dealer of the goods supplied by the respondent company; that during the course of business transactions, the respondent had supplied goods to the petitioner, for which the petitioner was liable to pay the consideration; that towards the partial discharge of his liability, the petitioner issued three cheques, including the cheque in the present case bearing No.000270, dated 25.06.2011, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on the ICICI Bank Limited, Tiruchengode; that when the said cheques were presented for collection, they were returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds', and that, in spite of the receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner did not make the payment. The petitioner was prosecuted separately for the dishonour of the two other cheques in C.C.Nos.432 and 219 of 2012.

(b) Before the trial Court, the Authorised Signatory of the respondent-company examined himself as P.W.1 and one Dhamotiatan was examined as P.W.2 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.9. The petitioner neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

(c) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the respondent had proved the foundational facts; that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption; and that hence, the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, vide judgment dated 24.07.2017.

(d) The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 06.12.2021, confirmed the findings of guilt and the sentence imposed by the trial court. The petitioner has also filed Crl.R.C.Nos.836 and 838 of 2022, challenging the Judgments passed in C.A.Nos 397 and 398 of 2017, confirming the Judgments passed in C.C.Nos.432 and 219 of 2012 respectively. All the revisions were taken up and heard together.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never acknowledged his liability to pay any money to the respondent; that the cheque in question, along with two other cheques, was handed over to the respondent as security; that the letter dated 04.09.2010 marked as Exhibit P4 by the respondent to prove that the petitioner acknowledged his liability was not written by the petitioner; that a bare perusal of the said letter would show that the signature in that letter differs from his admitted signature in the cheque; that, since the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption, the judgments passed by the Courts below, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the respondent had proved the foundational facts; that he had established that the cheque in question as well as other two cheques were signed by the petitioner; that the cheques were dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds’ and that, in spite of the statutory notice, the petitioner failed to repay the amount. He further submitted that the suggestions made during the cross-examination of P.W.1 are not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption and therefore, the Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner as stated above, which cannot be said to be erroneous.

5. The signature in the cheque in question is not disputed by the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that Ex.P4 was never written by him, he had not sought for comparison of the signature in the said letter with his admitted signatures. Even assuming that Ex.P4 has to be ignored, the respondent had established the foundational facts for drawing the presumption.

6. Though the petitioner denies the receipt of the statutory notice on the ground that the same was returned unclaimed, it is seen from the records that the notice was sent to the correct address of the petitioner. If the petitioner had returned the notice as ‘unclaimed’, it is deemed service of notice.

7. To substantiate his defence that the cheques were issued only as security, the petitioner had not sought for the return of the cheques after he had allegedly discharged his liability. Even according to the petitioner, there was a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondent.

8. Be that as it may. In the cross-examination, several suggestions were made to P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, nothing has been elicited to rebut the statutory presumption. The only fact that the petitioner could elicit from the witness on behalf of the respondent is that the invoices do not tally with the statement of accounts filed by the respondent. Nothing has been elicited to probabilize the defence that the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheques. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

9. Therefore, this Court finds that there is absolutely no infirmity whatsoever in the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.10.2026 (2/3) skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level-1, Coimbatore.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.837 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.8514 of 2022 (2/3) 01.10.2026