JUDGMENT : These Criminal Appeals are directed as against the order of acquittal made in various Calendar Cases noted in the tabular column given below, but the orders passed in all the calendar cases are one and the same day, dated 20.07.2005 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Tabular Column S. No. Crl. A. Nos. C.C. No. Cheque No. & Date Amount 1. 403 of 2006 591 of 1998 657378/1.10.1998 Rs.1,94,000/- 2. 404 of 2006 2360 of 1998 657380/ Rs.1,94,000/- 3. 405 of 2006 6598 of 1998 822356/1.9.1998 Rs.2,05,000/- 4. 406 of 2006 6599 of 1998 822369/ Rs.3,99,009/- 5. 407 of 2006 756 of 1999 822357/1.10.1998 Rs.2,05,000/- 6. 408 of 2006 760 of 1998 822370/3.10.1998 Rs.3,99,009/- 7. 409 of 2006 1319 of 1999 822371/ Rs.3,99,009/- 8. 410 of 2006 3223 of 1999 822374/3.2.99 Rs.3,99,009/- 9. 411 of 2006 3224 of 1999 822361/1.2.1999 Rs.2,05,000/- 10. 412 of 2006 4222 of 2001 822356/1.2.2001 Rs.1,72,200/- 11. 413 of 2006 4323 of 1999 /03.03.1999 Rs.3,99,009/- 12. 414 of 2006 4324 of 1999 822362/1.3.1999 Rs.2,05,000/- 13. 415 of 2006 5753 of 1999 657385/01.05.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 14. 415 of 2006 8498 of 1999 836062/03.09.1999 Rs.2,34,218/- 15. 150 of 2006 3514 of 2001 348804/1.12.2000 Rs.1,72,200/- 16. 151 of 2006 1362 of 1999 657379/1.11.1998 Rs.1,94,000/- 17. 152 of 2006 3226 of 1999 657382/1.02.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 18. 153 of 2006 90 of 2000 657390/1.10.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 19. 154 of 2006 6355 of 1999 657381/1.01.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 20. 155 of 2006 6730 of 1999 657377/1.09.1998 Rs.1,94,000/- 21. 156 of 2006 4228 of 1999 657383/1.03.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 22. 157 of 2006 6354 of 1999 657386/1.06.1999 Rs.1,94,000/- 23. 183 of 2006 7224 of 1999 822379/3.07.1999 Rs.3,99,009/- 24. 184 of 2006 2430 of 1998 822372/1.12.1998 Rs.3,99,009/- 25. 185 of 2006 1320 of 1999 822358/01.11.1998 Rs.2,25,000/- 26. 94 of 2006 6199 of 1998 657361/16.08.1998 Rs.5,6 5,000/- 27. 95 of 2006 4887 of 1999 657368/16.03.1998 Rs.5,6 5,000/- 28. 96 of 2006 4225 of 2001 348809/01.04.2001 Rs.9,567/- 2. The parties in all these appeals are one and the same and hereafter called as their capacity before the trial court. The appellant in all these appeals are the complainant and the respondents herein are the accused before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai which was filed for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as N.I Act). 3. The appellant in all these appeals are the complainant and the respondents herein are the accused before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai which was filed for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as N.I Act). 3. The following facts are necessary for the disposal of these Criminal Appeals. 4. According to the complainant company, it is engaged in money lending business for aspirants purchasers of Vehicles and Machineries under Hire Purchase Agreement and Lease Finance Scheme. The 1st accused company is involving in the business relating to cine field. 5. The accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively are the Managing Director and Director of the 1st accused Company. According to the complainant company, a Hire Purchase agreement came to be entered into between itself as Vendor and the accused company as purchaser. The accused company had taken delivery of machineries worth about Rs.1,43,93,180/- from the complainant and the said amount should be paid in 60 monthly installment by the accused company. Towards an installment of the said loan amount the accused company issued various Cheques mentioned in the tabular column and all of them are drawn at M/s. Union Bank of India and State Bank of India, T. Nagar Branch for a sum Rupees also mentioned in the said tabular column. 6. The complainant/appellant consequently presented the cheques for encashment, however all of them were returned with an endorsement that Refer to Drawer. Thereupon statutory legal notice was issued to the accused company, however as there was neither any reply nor any payment, made by accused, the appellant company has filed the above said complaints under Section 142 of N.I. Act against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Rebutting the contention raised by the complainant/appellant, the respondent herein/accused contented that subject cheques were not supported by consideration. It is the contention of the respondent/accused that the there was a hire purchase agreement entered by their company with the appellants company, for which pronotes, cheques and other documents have been received from them. On the other hand, the complaint company did not lend any loan as per the hire purchase agreement. Whereas, without lending loan, the complainant/appellant had presented the cheques given by the accused company issued for security purpose. There was no consideration passed on the subject cheques in question. On the other hand, the complaint company did not lend any loan as per the hire purchase agreement. Whereas, without lending loan, the complainant/appellant had presented the cheques given by the accused company issued for security purpose. There was no consideration passed on the subject cheques in question. Therefore the question of an offence under NI Act will not arise. 8. Before the Trial Court on the side of the complainant three witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. On the side of the accused two witnesses were examined and one document was marked. 9. The learned Magistrate upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, acquitted the accused by holding that the subject Cheques were not supported by consideration. 10. I heard Mr. G. Ravikumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.R. Rameshkumar, learned counsel for the respondents in all the Criminal Appeals and the documents available on record are perused. 11. It is found that during the pendency of these appeals the 2nd respondent/2nd accused namely A. Ravi Shankar Prasad died on 13.07.2013 and to that effect memo was filed on the side of the accused and the same was recorded, hence the appeals stand abated as against the deceased 2nd accused. 12. It is appeared further from the memo filed by the respondents that the respondent s company was wound up by an order of this Court made in C.P.No.178 of 2015 dated 29.01.2016 and at present the administration of the company is been taken charge by an Official Liquidator appointed by this Court. 13. The arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the appellant are that the accused company issued several cheques towards a previous agreement dated 16.11.1994. Since the terms of the agreement were not complied with by the accused company, a negotiation was taken place and in pursuance of the same the present Hire Purchase Agreement Ex-R1 came to be entered into by the parties concerned. At the same time, the discussion of the Learned Trial Court that the fact of the previous agreement and the transactions thereon were not pleaded and the complaint of the complainant is lacking of bonafide, which creates serious doubts about the passing of consideration. At the same time, the discussion of the Learned Trial Court that the fact of the previous agreement and the transactions thereon were not pleaded and the complaint of the complainant is lacking of bonafide, which creates serious doubts about the passing of consideration. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the accused has not taken such a stand about the passing of consideration pursuant to the Ex-R1, the finding of the learned trial judge by acquitting the accused is unjustified and the same is required re-appreciation of evidence by this Court. He adds further that in as much as the other contention of the Appellant that the Learned Magistrate ought not to have drawn presumption by shifting the burden upon the complainant, since the initial burden casting upon the complainant is proved by him successfully. Further the presumption available under sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act has not been rebutted by the accused and therefore the finding of the Learned Magistrate is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 14. The Learned Counsel for the respondents/ accused would submit that the complainant company has not pleaded in the complainant or in statutory Notice with regard to the earlier agreement dated 16.11.1994 and also the previous transaction between the parties. That apart during the course of cross examination of PW1, he has specifically admitted that no consideration was passed in respect of Ex-R1 Hire Purchase Agreement. Therefore certainly the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the cheques in question were issued towards a legally enforceable debt. However, the fact remains that the complainant failed to prove the passing of consideration on Ex-P1. Therefore, the complainant cannot resort asylum under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 15. It is the admitted case that the present hire purchase agreement Ex-R1 was entered into by the parties concerned for the previous transaction. At the same time it is relevant to point out here that the accused has not denied his signatures in any of the exhibits meant for the monetary liability upon the complainant. However, even in the cross examination the accused has not deposed that under some cloudy circumstances, he was constrained to put his signatures. At the same time it is relevant to point out here that the accused has not denied his signatures in any of the exhibits meant for the monetary liability upon the complainant. However, even in the cross examination the accused has not deposed that under some cloudy circumstances, he was constrained to put his signatures. Moreover, admittedly no reply was given to the statutory demand notice issued by the complainant and the accused has not disputed the existence of the Ex-R1 then he is liable to answer and to give explanation as to why Ex-R1 came to light. As a prudent person he ought not to have entered into such an agreement by putting his signature. No doubt when the accused has not denied the execution of Ex-R1 and the contents thereon, then in the considered opinion of this court, he is liable to disprove the case of the complainant as the complainant has shifted the burden to prove the case upon the accused. 16. It is seen form the records that quite numbers of cheques were issued followed by the execution of Ex-R1. Apart from that the transactions are supported by other documents as admitted by either parties. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out here that though the counsel for the accused denied the passing of consideration; he has no answer as to why the statutory demand notice was not replied properly and why legal action was not taken as against the complainant. Moreover these aspects are to be answered properly by the accused as the accused is the executant of all the documents including the cheques. 17. In this regard it would be useful to extract the following Sections: 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:- (a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) ...... 18. The plain reading of the above provision would make clear that the accused should prove that there was no consideration on the instrument, unless the contrary is proved. 18. The plain reading of the above provision would make clear that the accused should prove that there was no consideration on the instrument, unless the contrary is proved. In the case on hand, the accused has not denied the execution of Ex-R1 Hire Purchase Agreement and therefore it is not safe for this court to come to the conclusion that no consideration was passed on the cheques in question. “139. Presumption in favour of holder: It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 19. In this context, it is useful to refer the following Judgment: In the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 “21. The appellant's submission that the cheques were not drawn for the 'discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability' is answered by the third presumption available to the Bank under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This section provides that "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability". The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential burden on the appellant of proving that the cheque was not received by the Bank towards the discharge of any liability. 22. Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, AIR 1958 SC 61 , it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exists, no discretion is left with the Court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.” 20. At this juncture, it has to be seen as to whether Section 139 of N.I. Act will aid the appellant company. As seen above, admittedly the accused company had not denied the execution of subject cheques and the signatures therein. Thus it is needless for this Court to say that the respondents company had not rebutted the presumption provided under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. 21. In the instant case, the initial burden of proving the case of the complainant has been completed when the complainant has proved the execution of cheques and other supporting documents by the accused. Then the burden is shifted to the accused to disprove the case of the complainant. 21. In the instant case, the initial burden of proving the case of the complainant has been completed when the complainant has proved the execution of cheques and other supporting documents by the accused. Then the burden is shifted to the accused to disprove the case of the complainant. As for as the burden to disprove the case of the complainant, the accused is expected to let in reliable documentary evidence and the mere and bare denial will not be suffice to hold that the accused has disproved the case of the complainant successfully. Apart from that the accused has not denied the causing of statutory demand notice, but he has admitted that no reply was offered by him. Though the accused is not legally expected to cause a reply notice, but to disprove the case of the complainant he ought to have taken the steps and stands which are taken during the course of trial. 22. Apart from that section 20 of the N.I. Act would make it clear that once the issuance of cheque is admitted, then it is for the accused to disprove the case of the complainant, hence this court is under the compulsion to reiterate that the mere and bare denial alone would not help the accused to get rid of the case. Therefore the presumption as contemplated under section 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the complainant and the learned trial judge is fell into error without appreciating the total circumstance of the case and the surrounding legal aspect in this regard. 23. Since the learned counsel for the respondents/accused has drawn the attention of this Court in respect of the memo filed to the effect of the death of the Managing Director of the accused company and contented that the liability of the company is absolved. This contention is legally unacceptable as the company represented by the 3rd accused who is one of the Director of the company. This contention is legally unacceptable as the company represented by the 3rd accused who is one of the Director of the company. It is also relevant to answer here that though the company petition was filed and allowed and the administration of the company is presently with the official liquidator that will not absolve the liability of the company for the reason that the company is represented by the 3rd respondent/3rd accused and the company is also liable to answer the proceedings of the N.I. Act as the company was not in the hands of the liquidator when the cause of action arisen at the time of filing of the complaint. Therefore in the opinion of this court that since the N.I. Act is a self contained law the same will not get diluted simply for the reason of appointing liquidator and the death of the Managing Director especially in the existence of one of the Director who is the 3rd respondent herein. 24. In the result: (a) all these criminal appeals are allowed and the 3rd accused/3rd respondent is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 6 Months each of the following cases and the Sentences are Ordered to run Concurrently; (b) the respondents herein shall pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in each cases to the appellant/complainant, in default to pay the fine amount mentioned in the tabulation below, the 3rd accused shall undergo one month Simple Imprisonment in each case and the Compensation shall be paid by the respondents/accused to the appellant/complainant as tabulated below: Tabular Column S. No. Crl. A. Nos. Sentence Fine Compensation 1. 403 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 2. 404 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 3. 405 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 4. 406 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 5. 407 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 6. 408 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 7. 409 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 8. 410 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 9. 411 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,05,000/- 10. 412 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 11. 413 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 12. 414 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 13. 415 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 14. 410 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 9. 411 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,05,000/- 10. 412 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 11. 413 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 12. 414 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 13. 415 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- 14. 415 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 15. 150 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,50,000/- 16. 151 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 17. 152 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 18. 153 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 19. 154 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 20. 155 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 21. 156 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 22. 157 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 23. 183 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 24. 184 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 25. 185 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- 26. 94 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.6,00,000/- 27. 95 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.6,00,000/- 28. 96 of 2006 6 Months of S.I. Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-