ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order passed by the P.O., & Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in Crl.A No. 25014/2014 dated 07.02.2015 where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the XIV ACMM in C.C. No. 26398/2012 dated 13.12.2013 was confirmed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is absent. There is no representation. Since the matter is of the year 2015, this Criminal Revision Petition cannot be dismissed for default and as such, the matter is taken on merits.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

4. The case of the complainant before the Court below is that the complainant and accused were acquainted with each other. On 09.06.2011, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to improve the building work and he promised to repay the said amount along with interest within a period of three months. Towards discharging his liability, he issued a post-dated cheque bearing No. 914827 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. As per the instructions of the accused, when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, it was returned with an endorsement as "Refer to drawer". Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued on 22.09.2011 and the said notice was served upon the accused, but he has failed to make payment within the stipulated time and as such, a private complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). Thereafter, the accused was secured and plea was recorded.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW. 1 and got marked Exhibits P. 1 to P.4. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked the documents as Exhibits D1 and D2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal. Subsequently, the said appeal also came to be dismissed. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-complainant except producing the cheque and legal notice, has not produced any piece of document to show that he was financially sound to lend the money.

6. It is further contended that the evidence adduced seriously does not show anything about the financial capacity of the respondent-complainant. It is contended that the documents produced by the accused clearly goes to show that the said lorry was seized on 13.08.2009 itself and the complainant has deposed that on 09.06.2011, the petitioner-accused borrowed a loan for purchase of lorry, sand etc.,. It is further contended that the Court below ought to have considered the fact that the cheque has been issued towards security of the chit transaction. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant vehemently argued and submitted that the accused and complainant are close friends and the accused has taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-and in discharge of the said loan amount, he had issued a cheque as per Exhibit P.1 and when, the said cheque was presented to the bank for encashment, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice was also served on the accused. After the compliance of ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, no amount has been paid. Even the defence taken by the accused is that the two cheques have been taken as a security, but in order to substantiate the said fact, he has not produced any document. He further submits that the learned trial Court, after considering the material placed on record, has come to the right conclusion and the petitioner-accused has not made out any grounds so as to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. On these grounds, he pr