The burden of proof and presumption under Sec. 138, 118, and 139 of the N.I.Act must be effectively addressed to rebut the accusation of cheque bounce.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/respondent is that the complainant and the accused are close friends. The petitioner herein had approached for financial assistance of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for the purpose of his tractor business and discharge the hand loans availed from others. On 15/4/2013, the complainant had paid Rs.2.00 Lakhs to the accused at Bellur in the presence of witnesses, while receiving the amount; the accused had promised the complainant to return the same within three months. On the very same day, he had issued post-dated cheque dtd. 10/7/2013 in favour of the complainant. The petitioner did not repay the said loan amount within time. When the cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient". A legal notice was issued on 24/7/2013 and the accused did not reply to the said legal notice. Hence, a complaint is registered. The Trial Court took cognizance and thereafter secured the petitioner, he did not plead guilty.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7(a). On the other hand, the petitioner/accused did not choose to enter the witness box and adduced any defense evidence, except cross-examining P.W.1.

5. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3.00 Lakhs. In default to pay fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.179/2019 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no opportunity was given to this petitioner and the learned counsel also would submit that there is preponderance of probability in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel also would submit that the very defense before the Trial Court is that the cheque was given in favour of one Kumaraswamy in connection with chit fund. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that in the legal notice both himself and the said Kumaraswamy, have signed. The learned counsel also would submit that the cheque in question is not a valid cheque in terms of the guidelines issued by the RBI and the matter has to be remanded to the Trial Court to take the specific defense and rebut the evidence of the complainant.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the cheque in question i.e., Ex.P1 is not denied and he admits the signature. Apart from that, the legal notice was issued and no reply was given and also no rebuttal evidence. In spite of an opportunity was given, the same was not utilized. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error and even the Appellate Court also considered the contention that no opportunity was given and in detail discussed in the order for having given an opportunity and the said opportunity was not utilized. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that no grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, no dispute with regard to the signature available on document " " Ex.P1. But only the defense before the Trial Court is that the cheque was given to one Kumaraswamy in connection with chit fund. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in