1. The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad preferred this revision assailing the judgment of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2010. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-with appropriate order of default sentence. The learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dismissed the Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the second respondent/de facto complainant is that the petitioner issued Ex.P.2 cheque dated 12.05.2003 with a view to cheat the second respondent and that thus the petitioner committed cheating punishable u/s.420 IPC.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner-accused and the second respondent-de facto complainant knew each other since quite some time. It is the case of the second respondent that the accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/-from the second respondent in July, 2002 on the foot of a pronote, certified copy of which is Ex.P.7. It is the further case of the second respondent that the petitioner borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the second respondent in the presence of two witnesses, who attested the pronote.

4. In May, 2003, it would appear that the second respondent demanded for return of the money borrowed by the petitioner. The petitioner, consequently, issued a cheque on 12.05.2003, the certified copy of which is Ex.P.2. When the second respondent presented the same for encashment in his bank on 10.06.2003, the cheque was returned on 11.06.2003 under Ex.P.3-endorsement that the account was closed. Hence, the case that the petitioner cheated the second respondent.

5. Admittedly, the second respondent filed a separate complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act, for short). The case is pending before the concerned Court. Again, the second respondent filed O.S.No.1135 of 2005 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad seeking for recovery of the amount covered by the pronote. Apart from a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act and a suit for recovery of the money, the second respondent laid the present complaint seeking that the petitioner resorted to cheating punishable u/s.420 IPC.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the second respondent took blank cheques duly signed by the petitioner as security, as there are many transactions between the petitioner on the one side and the second respondent and his father on the other side. The petitioner, however, admitted that he had to close down the account after issuance of the cheques.

7. It is the contention of Sri B. Vijaysena Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the accused had the account by the time he issued the cheque, subsequent closure of the account after issuance of the cheque cannot be treated as an incidence of cheating on the part of the petitioner. He pointed out that the second respondent must show that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea to cheat the second respondent right from the inspection, i.e. from the time of issuance of the cheque by the petitioner to establish the offence u/s.420 IPC against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the presumptions under Sections 118 and 119 of N.I. Act do not have any role in respect of the offence u/s.420 IPC and that the second respondent should prove his case beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding Sec.118 and 119 of N.I. Act presumptions.

8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioner had live account by the time he issued the cheque, subsequent closure of the account is not tantamount to cheating. Although the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses