1. The revision petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under S.138 of NI Act by the XXIII Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in CC No. 26373/2008 by order dated 26/11/2009, which has been confirmed by the Fast Track Court - III, Bangalore City in Crl. A No. 25145/2009 by O.08/04/2010. Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred under S.397 r/w 401, CrPC.

2. The petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the Magistrate. Towards repayment of the consideration amount, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs on 30/04/2007 drawn on Andhra Bank, Cooke Town Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant. On presentation of the cheque, it came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds. The complainant informed the factum of dishonour of the cheque to the accused by issuance of legal notice by RPAD and called upon to pay the cheque amount. There was no response from the accused. So a complaint came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under S.138 of NI Act. The accused having pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him, the complainant examined himself as PW 1 and marked Ext. P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused, three witnesses came to be examined as DW 1-3, apart from marking Ext. Dl to D2. The Learned Magistrate upon hearing both the learned counsel and upon appreciation of the evidence by his order dated 26/11/2009 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.138 of NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,60,000/-, Crl. A No. 25145/2009 filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence came to be dismissed by order dated 08/04/2010. Therefore, the petitioner - accused is before this Court.
I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused and the respondent / complainant. Perused the records.

3. The fact that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in favour of the complainant is borne out from Ext. P8 agreement, wherein, the cheque in question bearing No. 797168 dated 30/04/2007 finds a place at Sl No. 9. The reason for issuance of cheque in question apart from other 11 cheques is borne out from Ext. P8 agreement entered into between the parties. The complainant and his family members sold the property bearing Sy. No. 39/11 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Kodigehalli Village to the nominee of the accused V. Narayanaswamy as desired by him Part of the sale consideration was paid and for the remaining amount of Rs.75.00 lakhs, the accused issued a cheque including the cheque in question in favour of the complainant, which is marked as Ext. P1. On presentation of the cheque, it came to be dishonoured as could be seen from Ext. P2 - the cheque return memo. Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued to the accused informing the factum of dishonour of the cheque and called up him to pay the cheque amount on 08/10/2007. The notice was sent to him by RPAD on two addresses as could be seen from Ext. P4 postal slip for having sent notice by RPAD and Ext. PS is postal acknowledgment for having sent notice by under certificate of posting. Exts. P6 and P7 are the postal acknowledgment due for having received the notice by the accused sent to him by RPAD. Ext. P9 is the absolute sale - deed in respect of property sold by the complainant and his family members to the nominee of the accused V. Narayanaswamy. Thus from the oral evidence of the complainant coupled with the documents Ext. F2 to P7, it is obvious that the complainant has fulfilled all the mandatory requirements to file a complaint under S.138 of NI Act. The very fact that the cheque came to be issued, a presumption has to be drawn under S.139 of NI Act, mat it is issued towards discharge of the debt or liability. The presumption also includes the existence of liability. Even otherwise, the complainant by producing Ext. P8 an agreement and Ext. P