ORDER

Heard Sri. Jagadish.S.Halashetti. and Sri. R. V.

Shivananda Reddy for the parties.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.583/2015 confirmed in Crl.A.No.82/2017.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

4. A Complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'NI Act') by contending that the accused and the complainant had long acquaintance. In that relationship, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as hand loan on 18.10.2012 from the complainant with a promise to repay the same. Towards the repayment a cheque bearing No.373459 drawn on Pragathi Gramina Bank, Mylandalahallo branch, Chintamani taluk, dated 18.05.2013 was tendered by the accused to the complainant which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Legal notice was issued by the complainant. Though the same is served on the accused, there was no reply nor compliance to the callings of the notice.

Therefore, action was sought.

5. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance 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, complainant himself got examined as PW.1 and placed on record seven documentary evidence which were executed and marked as Exs.P1 to P7 comprising of dishonor cheque, bank endorsement, legal notice and postal receipts.

7. Cross examination of PW.1 by the accused did not yield any positive material either to disbelieve the case of the complainant or sufficient enough to dislodge the presumption carved out under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of complainant.

8. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances

9. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW.1 and placed on record 2 Adhar cards marked at Exs.D1 and D2. 10. Thereafter, the learned Trail Magistrate heard the parties and noted the material on record in the light of the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act and found that the evidence placed on record by the accused was not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. As such, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and imposed a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and entire sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant with default sentence Simple Imprisonment for one year.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.82/2017.

12. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by judgment dated 28.08.2020

13. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision.

14. Sri. Jagadish. R. Halashetty., learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in this revision petition, contended that the lending capacity of the complainant has been questioned in detail by the accused in the cross examination of PW.1 and when the lending capacity is questioned, the presumption available, to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act, loses it's significance and thereafter, it is for the complainant to prove the lending capacity by placing additional evidence on record.

15. He also pointed out that in the case on hand, there is a clear admission on record in the cross examination of PW.1 that at no point of time the complainant had deposited more than Rs.1,00,000/- in his bank account because the income that he had was sufficient enough to maintain his family. In the light of such an admission of PW.1, the Tr