IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur dtd. 5/6/2009 confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.289 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur dtd. 17/4/2008 convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the N.I. Act') and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

2. The revision petitioner herein was the accused and the Respondent No.2 was the complainant before the trial Court. The Respondent No.1 is pro forma party, the State represented by Public Prosecutor.

3. Case of the Complainant

3.1. The complainant approached the Court by filing a private complaint stating that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000.00 from him on 10/4/2004 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

3.2. Thereafter, accused issued a cheque dtd. 19/7/2005 for Rs.70,000.00 towards part payment of the debt. The complainant presented the cheque, but it was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As requested by the accused, the cheque was presented again on 20/12/2005, but it was dishonoured. Then, complainant got issued a notice to the accused. Despite receiving the notice, the accused did not respond.

4. On appearance before the trial Court, the accused denied the substance of accusation made against him and claimed to be tried and the trial went on.

5. The complainant himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of accused, he himself was examined as DW1 and his wife named Smt. P.Prameela was examined as DW2.

6. On appreciation of evidence on record and on hearing both the counsel, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted him under Sec. 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default Simple Imprisonment for one month.

7. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2008 challenging validity of correctness of judgment of the trial Court. No additional evidence was adduced before the appellate Court.

8. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court and also the sentence against the accused.

9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Courts below, the accused preferred this revision on the ground that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective; that though the burden is again shifted to the complainant after rebuttal of presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act, the Courts below lost sight of it; that the accused never denied his signature on the document, but he explained circumstances under which the documents are under the possession of the complainant and how they were misused; and that the complainant did not file any suit against the accused for recovery of the amount under the promissory note, therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant. Accordingly, prays to allow the revision by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below.

10. Heard Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the accused. The Respondent No.2 being the complainant and having received the notice did not choose to appear before the Court to submit his objections against the revision petition. Point for Determination

11. Now, the point fo