V. Jagannathan, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is by the accused, who has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial Court and sentenced to pay Rs. 65,000/-as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the said judgment being affirmed by the lower appellate Court by dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.

2. The case of the complainant in short is that, he took the house of the accused on lease from 16.9.1999 and paid Rs. 2,50,000/-towards the lease amount and, after vacating the premises on 25.3.2002, the complainant sought for payment of the lease amount, but the accused paid only Rs. 2,05,000/-and the balance of Rs.45,000/-was not paid. In the first week of February, 2004, the accused gave a post dated cheque for Rs. 45,000/-dated 15.2.2004 and the said cheque, on presentation, was returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. After issuing a notice to the accused, a complaint was present before the trial Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

3. After appearance of the parties before him, the learned trial Judge recorded the evidence of the complainant P.W.1 Thipperangaiah and nine documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9 and accused Sabastian was examined as D.W.1 and he produced the lease agreement Ex.D-1. The trial Court accepted the case of the complainant and convicted the petitioner herein solely on the basis of the document Ex.P-8. The lower appellate Court did not disturb the trial Court’s findings.

4. Learned Counsel Shri Ramesh Babu for the petitioner-accused, by referring to the documents produced and the evidence of P.W.1 in particular, submitted that the lease agreement was between the complainant and the mother of the accused. As per the lease agreement Ex.D-1, the entire amount was paid by the mother to the complainant and the balance of Rs. 4,000/-was adjusted towards the repair charges. Therefore, no amount was due by the accused as the accused had not taken any loan from the complainant.

5. As far as Ex.P-8 letter is concerned, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was taken forcibly at the police station when the accused was called at the instance of the complainant. Apart from this, even the date of issuance of the cheque is not satisfactorily established by the complainant because, he says in his evidence that the cheque was given on 15.2.2004, whereas in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the cheque was issued during September, 2002. This itself goes to show that the complainant’s case is not based on firm foundation.

6. Yet another submission put forward is that, neither in the legal notice nor in the complaint is there any mention of the contents of Ex.P-8. For all these reasons, the accused has placed enough material to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. As such, the findings of the Courts below are liable to be set aside by allowing this petition.

7. Learned Counsel Shri H.T. Narayan for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Courts below and argued that it was the accused who had receive the lease amount and made part payment, though the house actually belongs to the mother of the accused. Therefore, the view taken by the Courts below is consistent with the stand taken by the complainant in the evidence. Once the cheque is admitted as having been issued by the accused and the signature is not in dispute, the presumption has to be raised in favour of the complainant as per Section 139 of the N.J. Act. As such, the Courts below committed no error and no evidence by way of rebuttal is placed by the accused. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.

8. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the material on record, whether the findings recorded by the Courts can said to be based on evidence and secondly, whether the accused had rebutted the presumption, which was in favour of the complainant, are the points t be consi