ORDER

This is a petition filed by accused, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Session Court by dismissing the appeal filed by him.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. Complainant filed a complaint under Section

200 Cr.P.C against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, contending that accused is related to the wife of complainant and they know each other since several years. Accused was in the habit of taking financial assistance from the complainant for short terms and return the same. Similarly, during February 2016, accused requested for a hand loan of Rs.25 lakhs stating that the house loan taken by him is overdue and he would repay the same by making alternative arrangement within 10.04.2016. Considering the relationship and the urgency pleaded by the accused, complainant advanced hand loan of Rs.25 lakhs. When accused failed to keep up his promise, on 10.04.2016, on the request of complainant, accused issued cheque dated 12.04.2016 with a promise that it would be honoured. However, when complainant presented on the same day, it was dishonoured on the ground "Funds insufficient’’. When complainant called accused, he did not pick up his phone. Hence, complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused. Instead of paying the amount due under the cheque, the accused has sent an evasive reply and hence the complaint.

4. After due service of summons, accused has appeared through the counsel and resisted the complaint, contenting that he never borrowed any loan from the complainant and on the other hand he has financially helped the complainant. On one occassion, when he was in need of some financial assistance, complainant promised to get it from one Ganesh, who is running a finance and at that time got from him four blank cheques and also number of promissory notes. However, the promised loan was not provided and even though he tried to lodge a complaint, the concerned police failed to register the case. The accused has alleged that misusing one such cheque, the complainant has filed a false complaint. The accused has specifically contended that complainant is not at all having any financial capacity to lend huge sum of Rs.25 lakhs and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and his wife as PW-2. He has relied upon Ex.P1 to12 .

6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the incriminating evidence brought on record by the complainant.

7. In fact, he has stepped into the witness box by examining himself as DW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to

30.

8. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.25 lakhs in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the Session Court in appeal. However, vide the impugned judgment and order the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal filed by him and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, contending that both Courts below have failed to consider the fact that accused has not availed hand loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant at any point of time. They have also failed to consider that complainant has failed to prove the transaction between the complainant and accused. The complainant has failed to prove the financial capacity of complainant to advance huge loan of Rs.25 lakhs. The Courts below have also failed to appreciate that the cheque in question was given blank. Except his signature, the rest of the writing in the cheque is not in the handwriting of accused. In the absence of proof of financial capacity, by the complainant, both Courts have