The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in establishing the guilt of the accused under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Trial Court), in Criminal Case No.81399/2009 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the N.I. Act) and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 29/6/2011. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Fast Track Court-III, Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Sessions Judges Court) in Criminal Appeal No.25119/2011. Crl.R.P.No.352/2012 The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judges Court in its order dtd. 22/2/2012 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dtd. 29/6/2011 in C.C.No.81399/2009. Aggrieved by both the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well the learned Sessions Judges Court, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the complainant and the accused were into a real estate business since several years. During the course of business, the complainant had given hand loans by cash and also through cheques to the accused. Certain amounts were repaid by the accused through cheques. The complainant and accused decided to settle the accounts, as the real estate business suddenly fell down. Both of them finalised their account on 31/5/2009 before their friends wherein, it was found and agreed that the accused was due to the complainant in a sum of Rs.12,48,949.00 and another sum of Rs.1,35,000.00. Accordingly, the accused agreed to pay the same through two cheques. As such, the accused, towards discharge of his liability to the complainant, Crl.R.P.No.352/2012 issued two post-dated cheques bearing No.018176 dtd. 10/6/2009 for a sum of Rs.12,48,949.00 and another cheque bearing No.018187 dtd. 12/6/2009 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000.00, both drawn on Bank of India, Banasawadi Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque dtd. 12/6/2009 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000.00 for its realisation through his banker and the same was honoured. Afterwards, he presented another cheque dtd. 10/6/2009 for a sum of Rs.12,48,949.00 for its realisation through his banker. However, it came returned unpaid with the bankers endorsement funds insufficient in the account of the drawer. It is thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dtd. 10/7/2009, through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) and also Under Certificate of Posting (UCP) to the accused, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The accused, instead of making payment of the cheque amount, sent an untenable reply which made the complainant to institute a criminal case against the accused in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and Crl.R.P.No.352/2012 claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence wherein, to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and also examined one Sri. Janardhan Reddy as PW-2 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9 and closed his side. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got produced and marked as many as seventy-one (71) documents from Exs.D-1 to D-71 in his support. After hearing both side, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order.

4. The Trial Court and Sessions Judges Courts records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is physically appearing in the Court and learned counsel for