The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act is that of preponderance of probabilities, and the accused has a constitutional right to maintain silence.

1. The accused is the petitioner herein. The revision is filed against the judgment of conviction made in C.A.No.176 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Erode confirming the judgment made in CC.No.541 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.

2. The case of the first respondent against the petitioner in his private complaint is that the petitioner on 14.07.2002 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as loan and paid interest of Rs.5,000/- and for the due repayment of the principle amount issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 12.08.2002, and when the same was presented for encashment on 13.08.2002, the same is returned for want of sufficient funds and the same was intimated to the petitioner by notice dated 23.08.2002 and the petitioner did neither respond to the notice nor pay the amount. The first respondent/complainant has in order to prove his case before the trial court examined himself as PW1 and has also produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 documents. The trial court has on the basis of the available records accepted the case of the complainant that Ex.A1 cheque is issued for the due repayment of loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and found the accused guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as "N.I. Act") and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred C.A.176 of 2003 and the lower appellate court has also confirmed the findings and the judgment of conviction based on such finding passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision by the accused before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that, though the petitioner admits his signature in the cheque and the issuance of cheque, the petitioner stoutly denies the circumstances in which the cheque is issued. According to the petitioner, the cheque is issued in blank for payment of chit arrears due from the petitioner to the respondent/complainant who conducted the chit transaction.

4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has sufficiently made out before the court below that there was no such money transaction between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has no where withal to pay such huge amount as loan, both the courts below have without considering the such plea raised on the side of the accused found the accused guilty, mainly by invoking the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act and on the ground that the petitioner failed to rebut the same. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the standard of proof required to be adduced by the petitioner to discharge the burden cast upon him is not beyond reasonable doubt but only preponderance of probability and it is sufficient discharge if he is able to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the court about the truthfulness of the transaction between the parties and as the petitioner has successfully made out one such case that the nature of the transaction is not the one as claimed by the complainant the courts below ought to have absolved the petitioner from liability to adduce further evidence and ought to have shifted the burden upon the complainant to prove his case and on his failure to do so rejected his case and acquitted the accused and the failure of the court below to adopt such course has resulted in totally erroneous finding.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would strenuously contend that though the presumption raised under section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable the burden is upon the accused/petitioner to adduce sufficient material to rebut the same and mere raising some vague and bald defence in the course of trial is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden and the failure of the petitioner to issue reply notice and to enter into the witness box are the factors to be viewed against th