Would the presumption referred to in S. 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") extend to the cause of dishonour stated in a memo of dishonour issued from the drawee bank, or, the presumption is regarding the fact of dishonour alone, is the question raised for a decision in this revision.

2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad in S.T.No.808 of 2005 on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1, a Private Limited Company engaged in conducting Kuries. According to respondent No.1, petitioner joined three Kuries run by it, two tickets having a Sala of Rs.1,25,000/ - each and another having a Sala of Rs.3,00,000/-. All the Kuries were prized by the petitioner and he received the respective prize money undertaking to pay the future installments without default. He failed to keep up the undertaking. Respondent No.1 alleged that as per ticket Nos.41/84 and 41/85 Rs.67,500/- and Rs.70,000/- respectively, are due. As per Kuri ticket No.44/29 Rs. 1,90,000/- is due. Petitioner paid Rs.1.500/-. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 4.7.2003 demanding payment of entire balance amount due. Petitioner paid another sum of Rs.1,000/-. For the balance sum of Rs.1,35,000/- covered by ticket Nos.41/84 and 41/95 and for the sum of Rs.1,90,000/-covered by ticket No.44/29 petitioner issued Exts.P3 and P4, cheques. Those cheques according to respondent No.1, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Exts.P5 and P6, memos issued by the drawee bank are produced to prove the same. On getting intimation regarding dishonour respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Notice was served on the petitioner and he sent Ext.P8 reply. Since the amount as per the notices was not paid, respondent No.1 preferred the complaint. Director of respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheques. According to the petitioner no such amount was due and signed, blank cheques taken as security at the time of receiving the Kuri amount are misused. Learned Magistrate was not impressed by the contention raised by petitioner and found him guilty which learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed. That verdict is under challenge in this revision.

3. So far as execution of the cheques is concerned evidence is given by P.W.I. It is not disputed that petitioner had issued Exts.P3 and P4 cheques to respondent No.1 in connection with the Kuri transaction. Petitioner made an attempt to disprove the claim of respondent No.1 regarding the amount due by summoning relevant day books, ledger extract, etc., from respondent No.1. Those documents are marked as Exts.D1 to D5. Those documents did not help the petitioner in his challenge to the amount due. Courts below referred to Exts.D1-to D5 also and found that amount as stated in Exts.P3 and P4 was due to respondent No.1. Accordingly it was found that petitioner has issued the cheques in favour of respondent No.1 for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. That finding rested on a proper appreciation of evidence which required no interference in revision.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Exts.P5 and P6 (memos of dishonor issued from the drawee bank) are not properly proved by examining the officials of the drawee bank and that presumption referred to in S.146 of the Act is not available for Exts.P.5 and P6. Learned counsel contends that the presumption is only

regarding the fact of dishonor and not as to the cause of dishonor. According to learned counsel, provisions of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (for short, "the BBE Act") are not applicable to memos of dishonour.

5. S.4 of the BBE Act reads thus:

4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers' books.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act a certified copy of any entry in a bankers' books shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evide