T.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. D.RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal has been filed under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.87 of 2018 dtd. 26/4/2019 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and restore the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore in S.T.C.No.261 of 2012 dtd. 11/9/2018.

(2.) The appellant is the complainant and the Respondent is the accused. The appellant filed the private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore for the offence under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The learned Magistrate after the trial, convicted the respondent and directed to pay a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as compensation with interest, failing which default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. Challenging the said compensation, conviction and sentence, the respondent has filed the appeal before the Principal District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in and the same was made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore for disposal. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddalore after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, perused the records, setaside the judgment of the Magistrate and allowed the appeal. Challenging the said judgment of appeal, the appellant/complainant has filed the present Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs to the appellant and when it was presented before the bank, the same was returned for "funds insufficient". Thereafter he issued the statutory notice. The respondent received the notice and sent a reply stating false reasons and he has not repaid the said amount, therefore he was constrained to file the private complaint against the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore. The learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the respondent and directed to pay the compensation of Rs.30.00 lakhs and default sentence. Against which the respondent filed the appeal. The appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence and simply reversed the judugment of the Magistrate court on the ground that ingredients of 138 N.I Act has not been complied with and the respondent has sufficient funds on the date of the presentation of the cheque, even in his account, Rs.1,19,03,001.00 is available and it is wrongly appreciated that once the cheque returned for the reason "insufficient funds" and after the receipt of notice, the respondent has not repaid the amount and the signature in the cheque is not in dispute. The respondent accused has to rebut the presumption in the manner known to law. The respondent has not rebutted the presumption, the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence and simply reversed the judgment, which warrant interference of this Court.