When can the burden on an accused under Section 139 of the N.I Act be said to be discharged ? What is the nature of the burden on a complainant and an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act? Is the decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [2001(6) SCC 16] in any way altered or changed by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala [2006(3) KLT 404 (SC)]? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this revision petition.

2. The complainant alleged that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,96,750/- was issued to him by the petitioner for the discharge of a liability arising in a loan transaction. In the complaint or in the notice, he did not plead the details. He only averred that the cheque was issued by the accused for the discharge of a liability, which he owed to the complainant. The cheque when presented was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was duly despatched, received and ackowledged. It did not evoke any response. Of course later, long after the commencement of the prosecution, Ext.D1 notice was allegedly iss