CRL RC/1112/2021 of G.BALAJI Vs R.SENTHILVEL on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment in C.A.No.119 of 2020 dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 13.02.2020 made in S.T.C.No.3425 of 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Pollachi.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

2. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner obtained hand loan of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) on 16.03.2015 and executed a pronote in his favour, agreeing to repay the said loan with 12% interest per annum; that when the respondent demanded repayment, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) on 20.10.2015 and the cheque was dated 28.10.2015 bearing No.091288; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned with endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer” and in spite of receipt of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make the payment.

3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined himself as P.W1 and one Liyagath Ali as P.W2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P5. The petitioner examined the Bank Manager as D.W1 and marked Exhibit D1, his Bank Statement from 01.07.2015 to 31.07.2015. The Trial Court disbelieved the defence of the petitioner, namely, that he had only obtained loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) in July, 2014, and had issued a blank cheque as security for repayment of the said loan. The Trial Court, therefore, held the petitioner guilty since he had not rebutted the statutory presumption. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

that the petitioner and the respondent had several financial transactions; that all the financial transactions were through Bank and there were no cash transactions; that on 16.07.2014, there is an entry in the Bank Statement of the petitioner, marked as Exhibit D1, which evidences receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) from the respondent and the cheque was issued only as a security for repayment of the said loan.

4.2. The learned counsel would further submit that the instant cheque bears No.091288 and the previous cheque, bearing No.091287, is a self-cheque for withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) and is dated 14.07.2014 and the subsequent cheque, bearing No.091289, is also a self-cheque for withdrawal of money on 17.07.2014; and that this probabilize the defence of the petitioner that the cheque bearing No.091288 was issued only as a security for repayment of the loan taken on 16.07.2014.

4.3. The learned counsel would also submit that the version of the respondent, that Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) was paid by cash, is highly improbable; that the respondent had not established his source for such a huge sum; that since the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption and the respondent had not discharged his burden of establishing that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, would submit that the foundational facts have been proved by the respondent, namely, that the cheque was signed by the petitioner and the cheque was returned for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer" and since the concurrent findings of the fact that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption are not perverse, no infirmity is called for in this revision and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision.

6. As stated above, it is the respondent's case that he had lent a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) by cash to the petitioner in March, 2015, and towards repayment, the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 28.10.2015. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there were no cash transactions between the petitioner and the respondent; that the respondent had obtained a blank pronote and a blank signed cheque when the petitioner obtained the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) on 16.07.2014; and that though the petitioner had repaid the said sum, the respondent had misused the said cheque and filled up an exorbitant amount to falsely prosecute the petitioner.

7. In order to substantiate the said defence, the petitioner marked Exhibit D1, his Bank Statement, and he had also elicited from P.W1 that the cheque bearing No.091287 was used by the petitioner on 14.07.2014 and the cheque bearing No.091289 was used on 17.07.2014 and the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

instant cheque bears the No.091288. The above facts elicited probabilize the case of the petitioner that the cheque was handed over on 16.07.2014 to the respondent as security for the loan obtained by him on the said day. D.W1, the Bank Manager, also confirms the said facts.

8. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also probabilized the defence by submitting that all transactions between the petitioner and the respondent took place only through Bank, which is evidenced by Exhibit D1. In fact, D.W1 had stated that the petitioner had issued a “stop payment” and hence, the cheque was returned for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent lacked the capacity to lend such a huge sum.

9. In the light of the above facts elicited by the petitioner in the cross examination and by examining D.W1 and marking Exhibit D1, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption. Therefore, the burden shifted to the respondent to establish that he had the capacity to lend such huge sum and as to why he had lent the money in cash.

10. The respondent would state that he had obtained loan from his sister and that a portion of the amount was obtained by selling his property. However, no such documents were produced by the respondent

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

to substantiate his claim; Therefore, the respondent has failed to discharge his burden to establish that he had the capacity to lend money and consequently the fact that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt. Hence, this Court is of the view that in the light of the above facts, that the impugned judgment, holding that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption, is not in accordance with law and is contrary to the facts on record. Accordingly, the finding of guilt is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Criminal Revision Case, as such, stands allowed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

To:

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

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL.R.C.No.1112 of 2021 22-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 12:09:16 pm )