The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does not place the burden on the complainant, but rather requires the accused to provide evidence to rebut it.

O R D E R

In this revision petition filed by the accused, she assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I Act).

2. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and accused as before the trial court.

The case of the complainant is that the accused who was a subscriber of a chit conducted by the complainant bearing No.GV 278 having a sala of ₹6,82,500/-, auctioned the said chit and received the chit amount agreeing to repay the future subscriptions. But the accused failed to repay the future subscriptions in the chit as agreed. When the complainant demanded the amount due, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of ₹3,90,000/- in discharge of the said liability. On presentation of Ext.P1 cheque for encashment, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Upon receipt of dishonour memo from the bank, the complainant caused to send Ext.P3 lawyer notice. Inspite of Ext.P3 notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque and thereby committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and denied her liability to pay any amount. It was contended that the complainant misused the signed blank cheque issued by her by way of security. 4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 of N.I Act and she was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹3,90,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. It was also ordered that if the fine amount is realized, the same shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

5. Challenging the conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.181/2018 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, confirming the conviction and sentence.

6. On account of the absence of the counsel who filed the revision petition, this Court appointed Advocate Ms.Devika Manoj as amicus cu-

riae to assist the court.

7. Revision petitioner/accused assails the conviction and sentence against her on the ground that the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective. It was contended that the blank cheque as issued by her to 'Surya Chits Corporation' in the year 2014 by way of security was misused by the complainant. It was further contended that there is no legally enforceable debt and therefore no presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act can be drawn. It was also contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant failed to produce any document to show that he was the managing partner of 'Surya Chits Corporation'. Further it was contended that Ext.P6 statement of accounts produced by the complainant is not reliable or sufficient to prove the alleged liability. The learned amicus curiae contended that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused is liable to be set aside on the above grounds.

8. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is a cheque drawn on the account maintained by the accused at Syndicate Bank, Koyilandi Branch and it bears her signature. Accused would admit that she had issued a blank cheque as security to 'Surya Chits Corporation'. Accused has no case that she was not a subscriber of the chit bearing No.G.V.278 conducted by the 'Surya Chits Corporation'. She would admit that she