ORDER

Heard Sri. Vijaya Kumar.K., learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Though respondent is served, he remained unrepresented.

3. The accused who suffered an order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act') in C.C.No.496/2017 and ordered to pay a fine amount of Rs.6,25,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expenses to the State, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.157/2020, has preferred the present revision petition.

4. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the revision petitioner, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, contending that accused being the friend, borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as hand-loan on 05.04.2016 with a promise to repay the same within 10 days there from. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to repay the said amount and ultimately passed on a cheque bearing No.305032 dated 30.08.2017 drawn on Corporation Bank, Koppa Branch. The said cheque on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'Account Closed'. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by the respondent to the accused. Though notice is served on the accused on 16.09.2017, there was no reply or any compliance to the callings of the legal notice.

5. Therefore, the complainant sought for action against the accused. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused and recorded his plea. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.

6. In order to establish the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record five documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P5, comprising of Cheque, Bank Endorsements, Legal Notice and Postal Acknowledgement.

7. As against the evidence placed on record by the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW.1 and no documentary evidence were placed on record.

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

9. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties and by judgment dated 26.08.2020 raising presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act in favour of the complainant, noted that there is no sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and awarded a fine of Rs.6,25,000/- out of which, Rs.6,20,000/- was paid as compensation to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the State towards defraying expenses.

10. Being not satisfied with the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.157/2020.

11. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the records and heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused-

petitioner is before this Court.

12. Sri. Vijaya Kumar.K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the oral evidence of the accused, wherein accused has specifically taken a contention that a cheque in question was issued to one Arun and same has been misused by Arun and the complainant. Therefore, the accused ought to have been acquitted.

13. He also pointed out that the cheque is dishonored with 'Account Closed' which clearly shows that an old cheque has been misused by the complainant in active collusion with Arun and sought for allowing the revision petition.

14. In light of the arguments putforth on behalf of revision petitioner, this Court perused the material evidence on record meticulously.