ORDER :

1. The petitioner was the accused in the Court of learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court) in C.C. No.1465/2006 who was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’).

2. Summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that on 10.10.2005, the accused in order to purchase some land availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant. Towards the repayment of the said loan amount he issued a cheque bearing No.46900 dated 15.02.2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, drawn on Chikmagalur Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamita, Chikmagalur, in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented for its realisation by the complainant through her banker returned with the banker’s endorsement as “ not arranged for ”. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused did not pay the cheque amount which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held wherein the complainant got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P5. The accused got himself examined as D.W.1 and also examined one Sri Siddegowda as D.W.2 but did not produce any documentary evidence on his behalf. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments from both side and considering the material on record, by its impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly.

3. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned I Addl. Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’s Court’) in Crl.A. No.334/2013. Learned Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 17.11.2015 while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

4. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. Perused the materials placed on record.

5. Respondent is being represented by her learned counsel.

6. Heard submissions from both side learned counsels.

7. The point that arises for my consideration is, “whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Session Judge’s Court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?”

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in their proper perspective. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that issuance of cheque as per Ex.P1 and its dishonour as per Ex.P2, issuance of notice as per Ex.P3 are not in dispute, hence the presumption about the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant has been formed. He further submitted that the accused failed to rebut the said presumption, as such, the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court have rightly held him guilty of the alleged offence.

9. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. It is also not in dispute that cheque at Ex.P1 is drawn by the accused and the same came to be returned unpaid when presented for its realisation by the complainant with the banker’s endorsement as per Ex.P2 which shows the reason as “ not arranged for”. It is also not in dispute that after dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P3 demanding the payment of the cheque amount.