The burden of proof lies on the accused to prove his defense or contentions, especially in cases involving dishonour of cheques. Legal provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presume that the cheque has been issued for discharging the debt or liability.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the common judgment dated 24th January, 2002 passed by the 13th additional City Civil Jildge, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 16/1999. Wherefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of this revision petitioner and allowed the criminal revision petition No. 52/1999 filed by the respondent-complainant confirming the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, in imposing a fine of Rs. 40. 000/-, ut the compensation awarded to the complainant respondent is enhanced to the extent of the sum of Rs. 35. 000/- and the same was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Wherefore, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the criminal Appeal No. 16/1999, the Revision petitioner accused has come up with this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C. mainly on the ground that both the trial Court and the learned Sessions judge have not properly appreciated and analysed the evidence on record by the respondent and both the Courts have not considered the demands made by the respondent -P. W. 1 before the trial Court. It is further averred that the person who has approached the Criminal Court to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. Therefore, the order under Revision is liable to be set aside.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this case are that this Revision petitioner-accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 30. 000/- in the month of December, 1993 from the complainant- respondent and issued a post dated cheque dated 23-9-1995 agreeing to repay the amount within that time and since this Revision petitioner-accused did not repaid the amount, the said cheque was presented by the respondent-complainant's Bank at karnataka Bank, Srinagar Branch, bangalore and the same was returned with an endorsement as Fund insufficient on 29- 9-1995. Thereafter, on 5-10-1995, the respondent -complainant got issued a legal notice and the said legal notice was duly served on the revision petitioner-accused and in turn sent a reply notice dated 16-10- 1995 contending that he borrowed the loan of Rs. 30. 000/- from one Sri Damodhara naidu and he repaid the same. But the said damodhara is nowhere concerned with this transaction. In spite of granting 15 days time, the revision petitioner-accused had not repaid the amount or complied with the notice. Therefore, the respondent filed a private complaint under offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. After receipt of summons, the revision petitioner appeared through his counsel. So after considering the evidence placed on record, the First Additional CMM bangalore, by Judgment dated 9th January, 1999 passed in Criminal case No. 2658/ 1996 convicted this Revision petitioner-accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default in payment of fine the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Further, it was ordered, out of the fine amount of Rs. 40,000/-, a sum of Rs. 20. 000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation after the appeal period Is over. Accordingly, the order of conviction has been challenged by the Revision petitioner-accused, before the learned sessions Judge in Criminal appeal No. 16/ 1999 whereas the respondent-complainant filed a Revision petition i. e, Crl. Rev. Petition no. 52/1999 for enhancement of sentence. So after reappraisal of the evidence placed on record, the learned Sessions judge dismissed the appeal and allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent- complainant.

( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly analysed and appreciated the evidence placed on record through D. W. 1 in accepting the evidence. The revision-petitioner has issue