The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.

ORDER :

The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") in C.C.No.706/2011, 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. 26/10/2013.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No.273/2013.

The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its judgment dtd. 8/7/2015 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.706/2011.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that, the accused being well known to him, had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 from him in the month of March 2010, agreeing to repay the same along with interest thereupon within three months. Since the accused did not repay the loan amount within the agreed period, at the demand made by the complainant, he issued a cheque bearing No.719054 dtd. 16/6/2010, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Ankola Branch, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00. When the said cheque was presented for its realisation, the same came to be dis-honoured and returned with the banker's shara "A/c closed". According to the complainant, thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the accused, which was sent to him through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) as well Under Certificate of Posting (UCP). Though the notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due was returned with an endorsement, "out of station - intimation delivered - left-address not known" but the notice sent Under Certificate of Posting is served upon the accused. Still, the accused did not meet the demand made in the notice, which constrained the complainant to institute the present criminal case against the accused.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence wherein, to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-8. The accused, who contested the matter in the Trial Court, got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked two documents at Exhibits D-1 and D-2.

4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it, by its impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 26/10/2013 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a total fine amount of Rs.1,55,000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Challenging the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.273/2013 before the learned Session's Judge's Court, which after hearing both side, by its judgment dtd. 8/7/2015, dismissed the appeal, while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is appearing through video conference and learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is appearing physically before the Court.

6. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

8. For the sake of conveni