Revision Petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the

judgment of First Appellate

Court on the file of

LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-66),

Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1106/2015, dated 26.08.2016,

confirming the judgment of Trial Court on the file of XII

Addl.

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru

in

C.C.No.2586/2014, dated 01.08.2015 preferred this

Revision Petition.

2. Parties to the Revision Petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

4.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of

Trial Court Records with judgment of both the Courts

below the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the impugned judgment under

revision

petition

which

confirmed

the

judgment of the Trial Court is perverse

- 3 -

capricious and legally not sustainable and

call for any interference by this Court?

5.

On careful perusal of the oral an documentary

evidence placed on record, it would go to show that

complainant and accused are friends and known to each

other. In the month of June 2015 accused approached the

complainant for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet her

urgent domestic necessities. The complainant has given

hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and accused has agreed to

repay the same within six months by mobilizing the funds.

The accused in order to discharge the said debt has issued

cheque drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. from the account

maintained by her dated 23.03.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/-

Ex.P.1. The complainant presented the said cheque

through her banker ING Vysa Bank Ltd. The said cheque

was dishonoured with the endorsement "Account Closed"

vide Bank endorsement Ex.P.2. Complainant issued

demand notice dated 17.04.2013 through RPAD Ex.P.3

and the receipt is produced at Ex.P.4. The demand notice

- 4 -

is duly served to accused vide acknowledgement card

Ex.P.5. The accused has replied to the said notice Ex.P.6,

complainant also relied on promissory note under Ex.P.9

and consideration receipt Ex.P.10.

6.

If the above referred sequence with reference

to the date pleaded in the complaint are perused and

appreciated with the oral evidence of PW.1, then it would

go to show that the cheque issued by accused Ex.P.1 on

its presentation for collection was dishonoured vide bank

endorsement "Account Closed" . The demand notice

issued by the complainant is duly served to the accused

and the accused has replied the same Ex.P.6. Accused has

not paid the amount covered under the cheque Ex.P.1 as

called for in the demand notice Ex.P.3. Therefore, the

complainant has filed the complaint on 27.05.2013. The

complainant has complied necessary legal requirements in

terms of Section 138 (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "N.I.Act").

- 5 -

Therefore, statutory presumption available in terms of

Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act willl have to be drawn.

7.

In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer

the judgment of Hon'blel Apex Court in APS Forex

Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakti International Fashion

Linkers and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 945,

wherein it has been observed and held that once the

issuance and signature on cheque is admitted, there is

always a presumption in favour of complainant that there

exist legally enforceable debt or liability. Plea by accused

that cheque was given by view of security and same has

been misused by complainant is not tenable.

8.

It also profitable to refer another judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazer and

another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131,

wherein it has been observed and held that:-

" Once the initial burden is discharged by the

complainant that the cheque was issued by the

accused and signature of accused on the

- 6 -

cheque is not disputed, then in that case, the

onus will shift upon the accused to prove the

contrary that the cheque was not for discharge

of any debt or other liability. The presumption