Admission of debt triggers Section 139 NI Act presumption, shifting the burden of rebuttal to the accused.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 25,00,000 on 23.12.2013 and a subsequent Rs. 7,00,000 on 02.10.2014

To discharge the balance debt, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 26,00,000 dated 25.06.2015, which was returned with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”

Despite a statutory notice served on 02.07.2015, the petitioner failed to repay the amount

The Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore) convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to nine months of simple imprisonment and directing payment of Rs. 39,00,000 as compensation

This conviction was upheld by the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A. No. 89 of 2022

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, contending lack of opportunity to cross-examine and absence of a legally enforceable debt

1. Whether the complainant successfully established the existence of a legally enforceable debt to invoke Section 138 of the NI Act

2. Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was rebutted by the petitioner

3. Whether there was any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act regarding the dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds or stop-payment orders

Statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which mandates that the holder of a cheque receives it for the discharge of a debt or liability

Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 442 of the BNSS), which limits interference to cases of gross error, non-compliance with law, or perversity

Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) 4 SCC 720 to justify the disposal of the appeal even when the accused failed to appear for arguments

The High Court observed that the petitioner had admitted the loan transaction through a legal notice marked as Ex.P4, thereby establishing a money transaction

Once the complainant produced the original promissory note and the cheque, the legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act shifted the burden of proof to the petitioner

The court found that the petitioner failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of total repayment

The court rejected the petitioner's plea of lack of opportunity, noting that the lower courts had recorded his failure to avail multiple opportunities to argue the case

Under revisional jurisdiction, the court noted it cannot interfere merely because another view is possible; since the findings of the lower courts were based on the evidence of PW1, PW2, and material documents (Exs.P1 to P9), they were neither perverse nor arbitrary

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and upheld the judgments of the lower courts. The conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act and the order for compensation of Rs. 39,00,000 were sustained