1. Questioning an order of conviction and the consequential sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and having failed in Cri. A. No. 25124 of 2010, on the file of the Sessions Court at Bangalore, accused has filed this criminal revision petition.

2. Sri Hiremathad, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, when the ingredients necessarily to be established have not been established by the respondent-complainant. Learned Counsel submitted that the defence of the accused has not been correctly appreciated and hence, impugned judgments being perverse, interference in the matter is necessary.

3. Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the issuance of Ex.P.1 being not in dispute and that the same having been returned by the bank, whereafter a demand was made and the payment having not been made, complaint was filed and the offence committed by the accused having been established by the evidence of P.W.1, and on the basis of