CRL RC/579/2022 of M/S.LOTUS GARMENTS Vs DHANAM on 21 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in Crl.A.No.12 of 2021 confirming the Judgment in STC No.21 of 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (ML) Dharmapuri, dated 19.03.2021 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the complainant as compensation, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. It is the case of the respondent that she was working as a house maid in the house of the petitioner; that they had good relationship; that the respondent had received compensation in a motor accident claim for her son’s death and she had pledged her jewellery and received Rs.2 Lakhs and had given a loan of Rs.5 Lakhs totally to the petitioner on various occasions for her garment business; that towards repayment, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.5

Lakhs on 18.10.2013 drawn in IDBI Bank bearing no.113542; that when the said cheque was presented for collection it was returned for the reason insufficient funds and in spite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment.

3. Before the trial Court, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one Suresh as P.W.2 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The petitioner examined herself as D.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

4. The trial Court found that the respondent had established the fact that the petitioner had signed the cheque; that when the said cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for the reason insufficient funds; and that in spite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment. The trial Court therefore had drawn the statutory presumption and also held that the petitioner had not rebutted the statutory presumption though she examined herself as D.W.1 and marked two documents. Hence the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced as stated above and the appellate Court also confirmed the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent had not established her source of income; that the respondent was working in the petitioner’s house and had stolen the cheque; that therefore the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption and the Court below ought not to have convicted the petitioner.

6. Inspite of notice, there was no representation for the respondent. Hence, this Court appointed Ms.S.Gayathri as Legal Aid Counsel to represent the respondent on 25.08.2026.

7. The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the cheque was sent for expert opinion and it was found that the contents of the cheque were filled and signed by the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner and her deposition did not probabilise her defence; that hence both the Courts below therefore rightly convicted the petitioner; and that there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings.

8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the judgments passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court.

9. It is seen from the documents filed by the respondent that the cheque was issued on 18.10.2013 and it was returned for the reason funds insufficient on 30.11.2013. The petitioner has not made any payment inspite of the statutory notice. Therefore, the respondent had established all the foundational facts required to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

10. The petitioner on her part examined herself as D.W.1 and would state that she had entered into a sale agreement with one Vanithamani on 14.02.2013 and borrowed Rs.10 Lakhs from her and issued the said cheque as security to the said Vanithamani; that on 28.06.2013, she repaid the said sum and the sale agreement was cancelled with Vanithamani who returned the said cheque; and that subsequently it was stolen by the respondent.

11. It is seen that in none of the documents namely, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, there is any reference to the instant cheque. The agreement does not state that the cheque was given as security to Vanithamani. The cancellation of the agreement which was marked as Ex.B2 also does not refer to the cheque. The said Vanithamani was also not examined by the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the petitioner’s defence and held that it was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. This Court finds no infirmity in the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The sentence imposed by the Court below is also reasonable and therefore no interference is called for.

12. The revision is dismissed. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services

Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai, shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as fees to Ms.S.Gayathri. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

2. The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (ML) Dharmapuri.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri CRL RC No. 579 of 2022 21-09-2026