This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') is filed by the

accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence passed by the Court of XXII ACMM, Bengaluru (for

short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.32009/2009 dated 03.04.2014

and the judgment and order passed by Court of LVIII Addl. City

Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short the 'Appellate

Court') in Crl.A.No.439/2014 dated 01.08.2015.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

Facts leading to filing of this petition as revealed

from the records narrated briefly are, the respondent-

complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short,

the 'Act') contending that the petitioner had borrowed a hand

loan of Rs.2 lakhs from him during the first week of September,

2008 and towards repayment of the said amount, he had

issued a cheque bearing no.265819 dated 06.04.2009 drawn

on State Bank of Mysore, Vyalikaval Branch, Bangalore in

- 3 -

favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards

part payment. The said cheque on presentation for realization

was dishonoured by the drawee bank with shara "Funds

insufficient". The respondent-complainant thereafter got issued

a legal notice which was duly served on the petitioner. In spite

of service of said notice, the petitioner neither replied to the

same nor made payment demanded in the legal notice. It is

under these circumstance, the respondent had filed a private

complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the said proceedings, after

service of summons, the petitioner had appeared before the

Trial Court and pleaded not guilty.

4.

The respondent therefore to prove her case had

examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents as

Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner who had denied the incriminating

circumctances available against him on record during the

course of his Section 313 of Cr.P.C, statement had examined

himself as DW.1 in support of his defence and got marked 1

document as Ex.D1. After hearing the arguments addressed on

both sides the trial court by its judgement and order dated

03.04.2014 had convicted the petitioner for the offence

- 4 -

punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him

to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 6 months. The appeal filed by the petitioner -

accused against the said judgement and order of conviction and

sentence passed by the trial court was partly allowed by the

appellate court and while confirming the judgment and order of

conviction, the order of sentence was modified by the Appellate

Court in Crl.A.No.439/2014 on 01.08.2015. It is under this

factual background, the petitioner is before this Court.

5.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the

petitioner for the alleged offence. He submits that the cheque

in question was issued as a security with regard to the chit

transaction between the petitioner and respondent and the

same was misused by the respondent. The courts below have

failed to appreciate the defence raised by the petitioner.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has

argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and prays to dismiss the petition.

- 5 -

7.

I

have

carefully

considered

the

arguments

addressed on both sides and also perused the materials

available on record.

8.

The complainant to substantiate her case had

examined herself as PW1 and also got marked 9 documents as

Ex.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is the cheque in question which was issued

by the petitioner to the respondent. The signature found in the

cheque and also contents of the said cheque are not seriously

disputed by the petitioner. It is also not