1. Revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No 71/2011 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order of S.T.C.C. No. 796 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The J.M.F.C. has convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act' for short). Though the simple imprisonment of six months is given, this sentence is to run concurrently with similar sentence given in S.T.C.C. No. 795 of 2009. The private complaint was filed by present respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of revision can be stated as follows:-

The respondent/complainant is a partnership concern and it is doing the business of printing stationary items. The petitioner/accused is in the business of stationary items. It is the case of complainant that towards the charges of printing and supply of stationary items, the accused gave cheque worth Rs. three lakh which bounced. It is the case of the complainant that he used to send the goods by using courier services and when the goods were in large quantity, the accused used to collect the goods at the place of printing.

3. It is the case of complainant that the cheque dated 26.2.2009 bearing No. 132547 given by the accused was presented by him in his bank from Latur. It is contended that in the online transaction, it was informed that funds were not sufficient in the account of the accused and the cheque bounced on 27.2.2009. It is the case of complainant that when he contacted the accused and informed about the dishonour of the cheque, the accused requested to present the cheque again. It is contended that the cheque was again presented in his account by the complainant on 18.3.2009, but it again bounced and such memo was given by the bank on 20.3.2009. The complainant then issued statutory notice and followed the procedure given in N.I. Act and filed private complaint for aforesaid offence. The statutory notice was replied by accused. The accused pleaded not guilty.

4. Both the sides gave evidence before the J.M.F.C. The learned Trial Court has held that there were transactions of purchase of stationary items between the complainant and the accused and towards payment of part of consideration amount, the cheque in question was given. In addition to aforesaid substantive sentence, the J.M.F.C. has directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. three lakh to the complainant. In default of making the payment of compensation, the accused is to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

5. Following submissions were made by the learned senior counsel who argued for the petitioner.

(a) About jurisdiction :- It was submitted that the cause of action did not arise in Latur as cheque was drawn on account of accused from a bank situated at Dombivali (District Thane). It was submitted that the learned J.M.F.C., Latur has no territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action.

(b) The point of legally enforcible debt/liability :- It was submitted that the evidence given by complainant is not sufficient to prove that there was existing legally enforcible debt or liability and so the conviction cannot sustain in law, and

(c) The cheque given as security :- It was submitted that the cheque was given by way of security and not as the consideration for any transaction or as payment and so the conviction cannot sustain for offence under section 138 of N.I. Act.

6. This Court is discussing the aforesaid points. Much was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the burden of proof. It was submitted that the burden of proof was on the complainant and the accused has created many probabilities in his