ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the judgment passed by the Court of the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-60) in Crl. A. No. 882/2018 dated 08.04.2019 where under, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of the XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-5) in C.C. No.26780/2011 dated 17.04.2018 was confirmed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case as per the case of the complainant before the Court below is that the complainant is a dealer of Kraft Paper and other allied products and accused persons are its customers. They had purchased goods from the complainant on credit basis and carried on the business in the name and style of M/s. Klean Well Hygiene Pro and they have agreed to make payment within 15 days from the date of the respective invoices, failing which, they are liable to pay 30% interest per annum. The total amount due a son 27.01.2011 was Rs. 10,09,482/- inclusive of the principle amount and interest. In order to discharge the said outstanding debt, four cheques have been issued by the accused dated 27.01.2011 and they also requested to make the remaining balance of Rs.59,482/- after the clearance of the cheques. Further it is the case of the complainant that based on the assurance of the accused, he presented the cheques through his banker and all the cheques were dishonored with an endorsement "account closed" on 29.01.2011 and this fact was brought to the notice of the accused by causing a notice dated 11.02.2011. After service of notice, accused did not make the payment nor given any reply. When accused failed to make payment, a complaint was registered against the accused.

4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, secured the presence of the accused and thereafter, the plea of the accused was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claimed to be tried and as such, the case was fixed for trial.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has got examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked 30 documents. Accused No.3 herself got examined as DW. 1 and got marked 14 documents. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court below convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the trial Court.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 that both the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the facts and law in its right perspective. It is his further submission that though the presumption has been rebutted as contemplated under law on preponderance of probabilities, the trial Court without properly appreciating the factual matrix has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the complainant has not produced the full invoice so as to come to a conclusion that he has supplied the goods and the amount has not been paid. It is further submitted that the payments, which have been made have not been accounted for to the same amount, but which have been paid, have not been shown in the ledgers and not adjusted to the loan amount but have adjusted to other accounts. It is further submitted that the said cheques, which have been given to the complainant as a security, after payment of the entire due amount, the same have been misused and the present complaint has been filed. It is further submitted that heavy burden lies on the complainant to establish by producing cogent and acceptable evidence that there exist legally recoverable debt. Without considering the said aspect, the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition and set aside th