The issuance of a bounced cheque towards a legally dischargeable debt constitutes an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can only be rebutted by leading cogent evidence. Mere denial or putting suggestions does not amount to rebuttal. The defense set up by the accused must be more probable and supported by evidence.

ORDER :

This revision is filed by accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’ for short) in CC No. 15213/2014 Dated 27.07.2016 whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused/revision petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short) and confirmed by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, (‘Sessions Judge/Court’ for short), in Criminal Appeal No.1013/2016 vide judgment dated 17.01.2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant and accused are known to each other since several years; The husband of accused- Jeevitha Karthikeyan and the Proprietor of the complainant-Firm are family friends; During the year 2011, the accused and her husband have jointly purchased a house property at Kumaraswamy Layout and at that time, they sought financial assistance from the complainant to clear the house loan dues; As per their request, the complainant has paid Rs.6.00 Lakhs as hand-loan and the accused promised to pay the same within 18 months, but did not pay the same. When the complainant insisted for repayment, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.984871 dated 07.09.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Bannerghatta Road Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented, it was returned on the ground of Insufficient Funds. Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued to the accused, but the accused did not respond. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. she was also provided with prosecution papers and she denied the accusation. Then the complainant-Muniraju got examined himself as PW.1 and placed reliance on Eight documents as per Exs. P1 to P8. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the case of prosecution. The case of accused was of total denial. The accused herself was examined as DW.1 and one witness on her behalf was examined as DW.2. However, the accused did not choose to produce any documentary evidence in support of her contention.

5. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by imposing fine of Rs.8.00 Lakhs with default clause and further directed that Rs.7,95,000/- shall be paid by way of compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.1013/2016 and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrte. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner/accused is before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for respondent/complainant. Perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that, both the Courts below have committed error in not appreciating the factual aspects and failed to note that there was no financial transaction between the complainant and the accused. He would also contend