TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r/accused. Challenging the same, the respondent/complainant preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore (lower appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.53 of 2018 and the same was allowed on 25.09.2019 setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and directed to pay twice the cheque amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Against which, the present criminal revision case filed by the petitioner/accused. 2.Despite service of notice and the respondent's name printed in the cause list, no representation for the respondent either in person or by any counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent/complainant and the petitioner earlier availed vehicle loan from Dhanalakshmi Finance, at that time, he gave the cheque (Ex.P1) as security for the vehicle loan. The petitioner defaulted in making payment for the vehicle loan and the vehicle was seized and recovered by the Financier. Thereafter, the cheque, which was given as security, misused by the respondent, who is a stranger to the petitioner and projected false case. During cross examination of PW1, the same elicited. The Trial Court considering the same rightly acquitted the petitioner. But the Lower Appellate Court failed to look into the fact that it is for the complainant to prove prima facie case and thereafter, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. On the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king to the Police that he would proceed against the respondent in a Court of law. The trial Court found that the cheque got dishonoured on 06.06.2009 but the statutory notice not issued till the Police complaint lodged by the petitioner on 16.06.2009. Further it was also brought to the notice of the trial Court that the petitioner is having another case in C.C.No.142 of 2011 in respect of another cheque bearing No.478867 and the borrowal date is one and the same. Further it has been shown that on the same day, the petitioner borrowed around Rs. 4 lakhs but with two different persons and the same counsel is prosecuting both cases. Hence, the trial Court took judicial notice of the same. Further, it is seen that the petitioner denied the rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requirement and promised to pay 25% interest and to return back the principal within two months. Since the petitioner failed to pay the interest, the respondent requested the petitioner to repay the entire loan amount. On 20.05.2009, the petitioner issued a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank for Rs. 2,50,000/-. When the said cheque presented for collection, the same returned for the reason "funds insufficient" through bank memo (Ex.P2) dated 06.06.2009, thereafter, statutory notice (Ex.P3) issued and the same was received by the petitioner (Ex.P5). Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner examined two witnesses viz., Bank Managers and marked two exhibits i.e., statement of bank account of petitioner and respondent. Though a detailed c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that it is projected that on 20.03.2009 the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the promise that the same would be returned within a period of two months with interest @ 24%, in discharge of liability, the petitioner issued a cheque (Ex.P1) bearing No.478872 dated 20.05.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank, Vellore Branch for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is strange to see that at the time of loan, no document or any cheque collected and the cheque (Ex.P1) was handed over by the petitioner three months thereafter is highly doubtful. The respondent admits that on 16.06.2009 the petitioner gave a complaint to North Police Station, Vellore complaining that his car seized by the respondent and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an option to prove the nonexistence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue." 12.In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner by examining defence w....