The court emphasized the importance of substantiated evidence in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented.

ORDER :

The petitioner who was the accused in the Court of learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court1) in CC. No.2405/2009 (old CC No.257/2008), was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and accordingly was convicted by Judgment dated 21.11.2012.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused who was acquainted with him had borrowed a loan of Rs.80,000/- from him in the first week of January, 2006, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Since the accused did not repay the loan amount, at the specific demand made by the complainant for the repayment of the loan amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.059240 dated 18.02.2007 drawn on Corporation Bank, Mandipet Branch, Davanagere, for a sum of Rs.80,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realisation, the same came to be dishonoured with the banker's shara 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount. However, even after receiving the notice, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount which constrained the complainant to file a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter. After recording evidence and hearing both side arguments, the Trial Court by its impugned Judgment convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.l,05,000/- upon him. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused was also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The Crl. A. No. 127/2012 filed by the accused challenging the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court also came to be dismissed by the Judgment dated 01.03.2014, of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere(for brevity 'Sessions Judge's Court'). As such, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

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

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsels from both side, the matter is heard for final disposal.

5. The only point that arises for my consideration is, "whether the Judgment of conviction and the default sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner who is present physically in the Court in his brief arguments submitted that the accused had availed a hand loan of a sum of Rs.17,000/- only from the complainant in which a sum of Rs.5,000/- has already been paid leaving a balance of Rs.12,000/-. However, a blank signed cheque was given as a security to the complainant which she has misused by presenting it for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. He further submitted that the complainant is a cheat against whom several criminal cases are pending. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon Exs.D1 to D5 which are newspaper reports and Ex.D6 which is a certified copy of the charge-sheet in which charge-sheet it is shown that the complainant has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Learned counsel submitted that both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have failed to consider this evidence led by the accused.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in his arguments submitted that the accused except taking a self-serving defence that the loan was a sum of Rs.5,000/- only, has no