M.G. Giratkar, J.

The present revision is against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

2. The fact in dispute in short is as under :-

The complainant had given hand-loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. The accused and complainant, both are businessmen. They are acquainted with each other. Due to financial difficulty of the accused, the complainant had given Rs. 50,000/- without charging any interest. Accused issued cheque of Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kamal Talkies Chowk Branch, Nagpur for Rs. 50,000/- dated 8-7-2009. As accused has not repaid the said amount, therefore, cheque was presented on 11-7-2009. Said cheque was returned by the bank having remark "insufficient funds". Notice was issued to the accused directing him to pay amount of cheque. Accused deliberately not claimed the notice. Notice returned back. Thereafter complainant filed Summary Criminal Case No. 12844/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. Particulars/charge was explained to the accused. He denied the same. Complainant adduced his evidence vide Exhibit 24.

Accused not entered into the witness box. After hearing both sides, Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. double the amount of cheque of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal was filed before the Sessions Court, Nagpur vide Regular Appeal No. 73/2013. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same on 28-8-2017 and confirmed the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, hence, the present revision before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Shri Shelat for the applicant/accused. (The applicant is hereinafter referred to as 'accused') Learned counsel Shri Shelat has pointed evidence of complainant. It is submitted that evidence of complainant shows that he is doing money lending business. He has not produced any accounts book to show the loan transaction. Learned trial Court has wrongly recorded its finding that accused has not discharged his burden in respect of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel Shri Shelat has submitted that there is no need for the accused to adduce evidence. He may discharge his burden on the basis of materials already brought on record. In support of his submission, he pointed out following decisions.

(1) Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in, (2008) 4 SCC 54,

(2) M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and anr. reported in, (2006) 6 SCC 39 and

(3) Sanjay Yadhavraoji Makode Vs. Suhas Prakashji Dhote reported in, (2018) 3 DCR 24.

4. Heard learned counsel for the complainant Shri Bachwani and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Dhumale for the State/non-applicant no. 1. They have supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel Shri Bachwani for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has proved that cheque was issued by the accused. There is no dispute about the signature. Complainant also proved the acknowledgment in respect of receipt of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the acknowledgment on the letterhead of the accused is proved on record. The burden is to be discharged by the accused and not by the complainant. Accused has not discharged his burden. He has not entered into the witness box. The complainant has proved that he had given Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. Accused acknowledged the same on his letterhead and issued the cheque. Cheque was dishonoured.

Complainant issued notice but said notice was not claimed by the accused. Necessary requirement is proved by the complainant. There is no merit in the revision, hence, it is liable to be dismissed. He has relied upon following judgmen