The presumption of a cheque's validity under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption, and the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to counter it, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment of conviction dtd. 21/2/2015 passed by the Court of JMFC-V, Mangaluru ('trial Court' for short) in CC No.692/2011 and confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, ('Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal No.85/2015 vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2016.

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

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant- Smt.Usha and accused- Sri.Mahabala are acquainted with each other and as per the request of the accused, the complainant has advanced hand-loan of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 on 20/4/2009 for financial needs of the accused and the accused promised to repay the loan amount within six months and he had executed On-demand Promissory Note along with receipt of consideration. He has also pledged original RC Book pertaining to Maruti ALTO Car bearing No.KA.19.Z.6502. But, the accused has failed to repay the loan amount as agreed and when the complainant has demanded for repayment of the loan amount, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.4, 00, 000.00 and when the said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant, it was returned with an endorsement 'Insufficient Funds'. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused and the accused replied the said notice by taking untenable defence. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' for short).

4. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after perusing the records, has taken cognizance of the matter and issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared through her counsel and was enlarged on bail. The accusation was read-over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty.

5. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and she placed reliance on 10 documents marked at Ex.P1 to P10. After completion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial and he got himself examined as DW.1. However, he did not chose to produce any documentary evidence in support of his defence.

6. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, by imposing fine of Rs.4, 10, 000.00, in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.85/2015 and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2016, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of this revision petition.

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

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that, the accused is fair enough to admit the availment of loan only to the extent of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 in three installments of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, Rs.50, 000.00 and Rs.50, 000.00 and the accused has already repaid Rs.75, 000.00. He would also assert that, there is balance of only Rs.1, 25, 000.00 and at the time of availment of loan to the tune of Rs.2, 00, 000.00, the blank cheques and On-demand Promissory Notes were secured as security, which has