Madras HC Upholds 3-Month Jail Term In ₹5 Lakh Cheque Case, Noting Accused Skipped Final Hearing And Failed To Deposit ₹2.5 Lakh

The complainant alleged that Perumal borrowed ₹5,00,000 on 7 October 2015 and issued a cheque for the same amount towards repayment. The cheque was returned for insufficient funds, and Perumal did not pay after receiving the statutory demand notice.

The trial court convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Perumal filed this revision, contending, among other things, that no legally enforceable debt existed and that the statutory presumption had been rebutted.

During the revision, he did not comply with the condition to deposit 50% of the cheque amount and, despite notice and a final opportunity, did not appear or arrange representation.

Under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, presumptions arise in favour of the holder, though the accused may rebut them by raising a probable defence; that defence may be established through cross-examination and need not depend on independent defence evidence.

Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code confer revisional jurisdiction, which is supervisory and does not permit a complete reappreciation of evidence as in an appeal; interference with concurrent findings is warranted where there is patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that both courts below considered the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and defence witnesses, and that the appellate court independently reassessed the record.

Although the petitioner had raised arguments concerning contradictions, another alleged proceeding, and rebuttal of the presumption, he did not demonstrate any specific defect in the concurrent findings sufficient to justify revision.

The Court also relied on his failure to comply with the 50% deposit condition and his failure to appear or engage counsel after personal service of notice and a final opportunity, concluding that he had not effectively prosecuted the revision.

It vacated the interim suspension of sentence and exemption from surrender, directed the trial court to take steps in accordance with law to secure the petitioner’s presence to serve the sentence, and directed it to take appropriate steps regarding recovery of the cheque amount, if any.