The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction

dated 07.03.2011 passed by I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC,

Malavalli

(henceforth

referred

to

as

'Trial

Court')

in

C.C. No.493/2009 convicting him for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the

consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.3,05,000/-. The

petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2014

passed by Fast Track Court, Mandya (henceforth referred to as

Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.114/2012 by which the judgment

of conviction was upheld.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioner was the

accused while the respondent was the complainant.

- 3 -

3. The trial Court records disclose that the complainant

and accused were known to each other. The accused had

requested the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on

05.07.2008 to meet his immediate expenditure and to repay

certain debts. In good faith, the complainant paid the said

amount and the accused promised to return it on or before

04.01.2009. When the complainant demanded the accused to

repay the amount, the accused passed on a cheque for a sum

of Rs.3,00,000/- and assured that the cheque would be

honoured on its presentation. However, the cheque was

dishounoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the

accused. The complainant therefore, issued a notice of demand

calling upon the accused to pay the amount payable under the

cheque. Even after the receipt of the notice, the accused failed

to pay the amount, which compelled the complainant to initiate

prosecution of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The trial

Court took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the

accused. The accused appeared and was released on bail. His

plea was recorded and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. The complaint was examined as PW-1 and he marked

- 4 -

Ex. P-1 to P-4. The statement of the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied the incriminating

evidence against him. He led his evidence in defense as DW-1.

4.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence the

trial court held that the accused had committed an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced

him to pay fine of Rs.3,05,000/-.

5.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused

filed Crl.A.No.114/2012.

6.

The Appellate Court secured the records of the trial

court. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the accused

and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed it

in terms of the judgment dated 22.03.2014.

7.

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision

petition is filed.

8.

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

cheque in question was not drawn favouring, the complainant it

was handed over to a person named Ramegowda to be retained

- 5 -

as security for a certain other loan of Rs.50,000/- and that the

complainant had misused the said cheque to launch a false

prosecution. He also contended that there was difference of ink

in the signature of the accused as well as the writings on the

cheque signifying that a blank cheque was handed over by the

accused and that the complainant had filled it up before

presenting it. He therefore, submitted that the presumption

under Section 139 or Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 cannot be drawn in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case.

9.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other

hand, contended that the signature of the accused on the

cheque in question was not denied by the accused and

therefore, the trial court was justified in drawing the

presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881. He contended that if the cheque in question was

handed over to Ramegowda for the purpose of