V VEERAMANI Vs. K K PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of courts below, convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2.) The petitioner is convicted in C.C.No.877 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Coimbatore. The case of the respondent was that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-and towards repayment, issued a cheque dated 25.07.2003 for the said sum. On the return of the cheque, the respondent/complainant issued statutory notice and subsequently, preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In the course of the evidence, the respondent/complainant appeared and examined himself as P.W.1, informing that the borrowing had been effected in April 2002 towards meeting the expenses of the petitioner in a case pending against him. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant saw the petitioner in June 2003 and on repayment being demanded, the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 25.07.2003 for the said sum of Rs.50,000/-. In cross, the respondent/complainant had informed that the date of the cheque entered was on the very date of issuance thereof. On a perusal of the cheque, it discloses that the signature thereupon was in ball point pen and the rest in ink. The petitioner had in response to the statutory notice, caused a reply marked as Ex.P6. Therein, the petitioner had contended that he had effected borrowings from his co-employees and also, admitted that he borrowed the sum from the son-in-law of the respondent/complainant who is one of such co-employees. The petitioner therein had stated that he does not know the respondent/complainant and no amount has been borrowed from him and sought an explanation on how the respondent/complainant had come into the possession of the cheque. The petitioner had also informed that he had preferred a police complaint against the son-in-law/Ranjan and others on 27.06.2003 and it was thereafter, that the cheque giving rise to the complaint had been presented for payment. Towards disclaiming the contention of the respondent/complainant that the borrowings had been effected in meeting the legal expenses of the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted before the lower court Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 which informed that his suspension from service was revoked as early as on 07.09.1999 and pursuant thereto, he has taken charge on 23.02.2000. The contention is that the petitioners suspension was revoked on his acquittal under judgment in a criminal case dated 17.02.1997 and therefore, the respondent/complainant's claim of borrowing towards legal expenses in the year 2002, could not stand.

(3.) Urging the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has succeeded in discharging the burden passed upon him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, the respondent/complainant had failed to prove the alleged debt.