ORDER

Heard Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa A, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Surya Mukundaraj, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.9827/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.4,20,800/- of which sum of Rs.4,15,800/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid towards defraying expenses to the State confirmed in the Criminal Appeal No.229/2019 has preferred this Revision Petition.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by contending that, there was a lease agreement between he complainant and the owner of the petrol bank in the name and style of M/s Chandan Petrol Bank at B.Katihalli, Arasikere Road. The accused being the owner of Balaji Transport company and having ten lorries for running his transport business was having a relationship with the complainant in getting the fuel fill to his lorries and in that regard, there used to be some occasions fuel being filled up on the loan basis. According to the complainant, towards the fuel expenses that was filled up to the lorries of the accused, there was a due with the complainant and thereby to clear the said dues, a cheque bearing No.434286 dated 18.04.2014 in a sum of Rs.4,15,800/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, M.C.E. branch, Hassan came to be issued which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement as ''Funds insufficient'' on

15.07.2014.

4. Complainant caused a legal notice which was sent though a registered post to the accused. Though the legal notice was served on the 01.08.2014, there was no compliance nor a reply to the said notice. Therefore, action was sought against the accused.

5. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and produced seven documentary evidence which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, comprising of dishonored cheque, Bank Endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgment, lease agreement and 4 'B'

register extracts pertaining to lorry of the accused.

7. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, the accused got examined himself as DW.1 and produced two passbooks related to the Syndicate Bank marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

8. Accused statement is recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by the learned Trial Magistrate, wherein accused has denied all the incriminating materials.

9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and by judgment dated 09.07.2019 convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act passed the sentence as referred to Supra.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.229/2019.

11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in the light of appeal grounds in detail, dismissed the appeal of the accused by judgment dated 31.01.2020 confirming the order of conviction and sentence. Thereafter, the accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition.

12. Sri. Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa A, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Court have not considered the probative value of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 coupled with the oral evidence placed on the record by the accused which was sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 1