AYYAPPAN Vs. M. CHIDHAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein filed C.C. No. 506 of 2005 and STC No. 395 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I and VII, Coimbatore respectively against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in both the cases and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment in C.C. No. 506 of 2005 and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year in S.T.C. No. 395 of 2005 respectively. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the petitioner filed two separate criminal appeals in Crl.A.No. 125 of 2008 and Crl.A.No. 2 of 2007 respectively on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum -Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore and by two separate judgments dated 15.10.2008, the first appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Cases.

(2.) THE case of the complainant in short, is as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when an agreement was made stating that there is no business transaction existing between them, no amount is due and payable to the respondent/complainant as claimed by him. Therefore, the present theory of the respondent that he gave hand loan to the petitioner in the year 2003, for which the alleged promissory note was issued and for non -payment interest, the other cheques were issued are all concocted stories. Further, according to the petitioner, the cheque leaves were issued by the petitioner -Bank before the commencement of the year 2000. However, the respondent did not produce any document or any independent evidence to show how the amount was given and when was the exact transaction made etc., Therefore, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when a presumption is raised regarding the issuance of the cheque, it is the duty of the complainant to rebut the same. However, both the Courts below failed to take into account the aforesaid fact and convicted the petitioner, warranting interference in these Criminal Revision Cases.