1. Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment dated 29.3.2011, made in C.A. No. 18 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Namakkal, in partly allowing the Appeal against the judgment dated 9.2.2010 made in C.C. No. 109 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision is as follows:

The complainant is doing textile business at Tiruchengode. The accused and his family members running a Chit Fund. On 19.11.2004, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the complainant towards his chit fund business and agreed to repay the same within one month and issued cheque Ex.P.1 for Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Tirupur main branch on the same date. As the accused failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment into his bank on 27.12.2004. The cheque was returned on the same day for the reason "Exceed Arrangement" and the same was intimated to the complainant on 29.12.2004. The Bankder's Return Memo and Debit advice are Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice Ex.P.4 on 15.1.2005 to the accused and the same was received by the accused on 22.1.2005 as evident from Ex.P.6 Acknowledgment Card. After the receipt of notice, since the accused neither paid the amount nor sent any reply, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. On the complainant side, the complaint was examined as PW-1 and 5 exhibits were marked. No witness was examined on the accused side and no exhibit marked. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to P.6 and the arguments of both the learned counsel, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, convicted the accused u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, the accused preferred Appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. After perusing the evidence and documents, the First Appellate Court modified the judgment by reducing the sentence from 6 months to 3 months and confirmed the fine amount. Challenging the lower Appellate Court judgment, the accused is before this court by way of this revision case.

4. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there was a business transaction between him and the respondent/complainant and he has given a signed blank cheque to the respondent for the business transaction and the same has been misused by the complainant and filed a false case against him. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner contended that absolutely there is no money transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. The cross examination of PW-1 clearly shows that he has in no way connected with the alleged lending money. The complainant has accepted that the amount was given as hand loan and not for the chit fund business. The issuance of the cheque was by way of demand from PW-1. The petitioner has clearly discharged the statutory presumption that the cheque was not issued for any legal debt. The trial court has not taken into consideration of the legal position and simply convicted the accused. Appellate Court taken into consideration of the above aspects to some extent and reduced the sentence from 6 months to 3 months. Hence he preferred this revision praying for acquittal of the revision petitioner/accused by allowing the revision and set aside the order of the lower appellate Court.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that issuance of the cheque, borrowal of the amount have clearly established the legal liability of the accused. The statutory presumption under Section 139