The burden of proof on the complainant, the presumption in favor of the complainant under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, and the accused's obligation to rebut such presumption are crucial legal principles in cheque bounce cases.

ORDER

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under sections 397 and 201 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), wherein the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.40/2014 dated 28.04.2015 is assailed wherein the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere dated 15.03.2014 in C.C.No.687/2012 is confirmed.

2. The revision petitioner before this Court is accused before the trial court and the respondent in this case is the complainant before the trial court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as 'accused' and 'complainant' as per their respective ranks before the trial court.

4. The brief case of the complainant before the trial court is that, the complainant and accused are known to each other. The complainant is working as a Field officer at M/s. Indofil Company, Davanagere. In the first week of June 2009, the accused approached the complainant and requested him for a hand loan for his domestic and legal necessity to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. After satisfying the requirements and necessity of the accused, the complainant gave Rs.1.00 lakh in cash to the accused. It is further contended that the accused promised that he would return the same within one month. After one month, the accused did not return the amount as promised. Therefore, the complainant requested him number of times to repay the amount. Subsequently, on 02.8.2009, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.136896 dated 08.08.2009 for Rs.1.00 lakh drawn on SBI Bank, S.S. Complex Road, N.R. Road, Davanagere. As informed by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment to his banker bank, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement by the bank as 'insufficient funds' in the account of accused. Thereafter on 20.08.2009, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused demanding payment of money. The notice was served on the accused on 01.09.2009. Inspite of that, the accused neither replied the notice nor paid the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the II JMFC court, Davangere for offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred as 'N.I'. Act for short).

5. The accused appeared before the court and after recording of plea, the complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked six documents as Exs-P1 to P6. Thereafter wards, the statement of the accused as required under section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the complainant. The accused gave his defence evidence as DW-1, but no documents were marked for the accused. After hearing the arguments, learned JMFC convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Further under section 357(3) Cr.P.C., the accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.40/2014. Learned sessions judge by the judgment dated 28.04.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and confirmed the judgment passed by JMFC Court which is now assailed by the revision petitioner/accused in this revision.

6. Heard learned counsel Smt. Saritha A.L. for Sri. Sridhar N. Hedge for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. N. Ramakrisha for Sri. M.R. Hiremathad for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that the judgment of conviction passed by both the courts are arbitrary, illegal and not in accordance with law. It is further argued that both