ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/appellant/accused assailing the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.43 of 2010, dated 31.03.2011, by the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court–cum– XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2011, dated 17.06.2013, by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/appellant/accused, and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

3. The parties herein will be referred to as per their array before the Trial Court.

4. The case of the complainant was that the complainant and accused were known to each other and out of the said acquaintance, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant on 16.03.2007 with a promise to repay the same with interest of Rs.10,000/- in the month of August, 2007, and issued two cheques therefor bearing No.042930, dated 10.04.2009, for Rs.50,000/- and another cheque bearing No.042931, dated 15.04.2009, for Rs.30,000/-, and agreed to repay the remaining amount by way of cash. The complainant presented the cheque bearing No.042930, dated 10.04.2009 for collection. But, the same was dishonoured by the bank for the reason “funds insufficient” along with a cheque return Memo dated 22.04.2009. On 05.05.2009, the complainant issued legal notice through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (R.P.A.D.) and under Certificate of Posting. The accused received the notice under Certificate of Posting, but neither made payment nor gave any reply. As such, the complainant filed the complaint.

5. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken on file by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and conducted trial. During the course of trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. No evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, and on considering the presumptions in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, the Trial Court found the accused guilty. The trial Court also by considering Section 27 of General Clauses Act, opined that notice of demand issued under Section 138 Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of N.I. Act sent to the accused was sufficient service. It found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2011 before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

8. The appellant failed to argue the matter before the lower Appellate Court. However, the lower Appellate Court considered the evidence on record and passed the judgment on merits on 17.06.2013 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and dismissed the appeal.

9. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant/accused contended that both the Courts below ought to have considered that the amount covered under the cheque in question was not a legally enforceable debt and no proof was filed in support of the debt and no evidence was led on that aspect; the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act to convict the petitioner; the complainant failed to produce the Income Tax Returns pertaining to the relevant period of transaction to prove that he was in a position to provide financial assistance to the petitioner; the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the Courts erroneously c