CRL RC/65/2024 of SAMPATH Vs LALITHA on 21 September 2026

ORDER

This revision challenges the judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, in C.A.No.4 of 2023, confirming the judgment dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, in S.T.C.No.932 of 2018.

Crl.RC.No.65 of 2024

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1 The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused had purchased 238 bags of paddy from the respondent and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,14,200/- towards the sale consideration; that, on 15.03.2017, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.205980 in favour of the respondent, drawn on ICICI Bank, Thiruvarur Branch; that when the said cheque was presented for collection on 13.06.2017, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’, and that, in spite of the statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment. 2.2 The respondent/complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P6, and the petitioner/accused examined himself as DW1 and marked Exhibits D1 and D2. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, found that the respondent had proved the foundational facts to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act; that the petitioner had not rebutted the presumption and, therefore, held the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,14,200/- towards compensation. The appellate Court, vide judgment dated 30.11.2023 made in C.A.No.4 of 2023, confirmed the findings of guilt and the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Crl.RC.No.65 of 2024

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set aside, as the petitioner rebutted the statutory presumption by examining himself as DW1 and marking exhibits D1 & D2. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, would submit that, admitting the liability, the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- towards full and final settlement in favour of the respondent before the Lok Adalat and had also signed a settlement agreement dated 30.03.2026 to that effect; and that, so far, the petitioner had paid only a sum of Rs.75,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.3,10,000/-.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has no instructions from the petitioner as regards the payment made by him in favour of the respondent.

6. It is seen from the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate Court that the respondent had established the foundational facts required to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the petitioner had examined himself as DW1, the Courts below have

Crl.RC.No.65 of 2024

disbelieved his evidence and found that the evidence was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

7. Further, it is seen that the petitioner himself had acknowledged his liability to pay the amount and entered into a settlement agreement, which he has not honoured, except for paying a sum of Rs.75,000/-, as stated by the respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed by the Courts below.

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, shall take steps to secure the petitioner to serve the sentence in accordance with law.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, this criminal revision case stands dismissed. 21.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To:

1. The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.

Crl.RC.No.65 of 2024

SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.RC.No.65 of 2024 21.09.2026