TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 and remanded the case back to the Lower Appellate Court. Thereafter, C.A.No.63 of 2019 was heard afresh and the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11.08.2021 reversed the acquittal of the Trial Court and sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 14,35,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Against which, the present revision is filed. 2.The complaint filed by the respondent is that the petitioner is in the stock market business and known to the respondent for several years. The petitioner used to borrow money from the respondent for his emergency expenses and repay them in short intervals. In the same manner, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,35,000/- from the complainant on 29.01.2015, though assured to repay the amount within three months but failed to pay. After several requests and repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.173960 dated 28.10.2016 for Rs. 14,35,000/- of Union Bank, Coimbatore. The cheque was presented on 02.11.2016 by the respondent in his name at Karur Vysya Bank, Somanur, but the cheque not honored and returned on 04.11.2016 for the reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner and further not able to produce any contemporary documents to show that he had such huge amount with him. On the other hand, the respondent produced Ex.P5 to Ex.P8/income tax returns for the period 2015 to 2017, from which, it is seen that no such amount of Rs. 14,35,000/- shown as credit in the name of the petitioner. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint and acquitted the petitioner. But the Lower Appellate Court merely gone on surmises and conjunctures reversed a well reasoned judgment of acquittal and the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is bereft of any consideration of facts. The Lower Appellate Court on perusal of case records EX.P1 to Ex.P8 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 gave a finding that it is a definite case of the complainant that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,35,000/- from the respondent on 29.01.2015 and issued a cheque/Ex.P1, further referred to cross examination of DW1 wherein the petitioner admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and issued a cheque but to substantiate the same, he had not sent any reply to the statutory notice and further referring to Section 20 of NI Act, justified that the cheque ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Daneshwari Tradeers vs. Sanjay Jain and another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 83 wherein it is held that To rebut the statutory presumptions, an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. It is further held that To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. The petitioner not denied issuance of cheque and his signature. The Trial Court misread the evidence and dismissed the complaint but the Lower Appellate Court, on consideration of evidence and materials, found the admission of DW1 issuing the cheque and not replying to the statutory notice and referred to Section 20 of NI of Act. In the absence of the petitioner not probabilizing his defence with any supporting materials, the Trial Court rightly held that it is on the petitioner to discharge the onus of statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act which the petitioner failed to do so and hence, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and convicted the petitioner. 7.In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S.Borcar and another reported in 2025 SCC Online 2069 for the point that when the financial capacity of the complainant is questioned and the complainant though produced the income tax returns to show that he is the man of means, if it is further doubted then the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act can be rebutted by the accused examini....