The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.

ORDER :

1. Though the matter is listed for 'Admission', with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for 'Hearing'.

2. Heard Sri Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Raju S., learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner-accused has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 27.12.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Channarayapatna, Hassan, in Criminal Case No.1574 of 2017 and judgment dated 25.10.2022 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, Sitting at Channarayapatna, in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2022, wherein both the Courts passed concurrent findings against the petitioner/accused and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act', for short).

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is the 'accused' and the respondent is the 'complainant' before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act contending that the accused and the complainant are known to each other. During the second week of June 2017, the accused approached the complainant to extend financial assistance of Rs.4.00 lakh as hand loan to clear the loans borrowed from others and agreed to repay the said loan within three months along with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Hence, the complainant lent loan of Rs.4.00 lakh on 22.06.2017 and in consideration of the same, the accused issued Cheque bearing No.035871 dated 22.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.4.00 lakh drawn on Federal Bank, Channarayapatna Branch. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment on 26.09.2017, but the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 04.10.2017 calling upon him to pay the amount due under the cheque. In turn, the accused replied to the said notice, but did not pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint against the accused.

6. After institution of the complaint, the trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea of the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked eleven documents as per Exs.C1 to C11. In order to rebut the claim of the complainant, the accused examined himself on oath as DW1.

8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.4.10 lakh and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2022 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, Sitting at Channarayapatna, and in turn, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and thereby, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court.

10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the accused has filed this revision petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts is