The

revision

petitioner,

who

is

accused

in

C.C.No.384/2016 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge

and JMFC at Chikkamagaluru is impugning the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2019

convicting the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for

short 'the NI Act') and sentencing him to pay fine of

Rs.3,50,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months, which was confirmed in

Criminal Appeal No.104/2019 on the file of II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, at Chikkamagaluru.

- 3 -

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant

lodged the private complaint in PCR No.500/2015 against

the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention of the

complainant that on 02.07.2015 the accused has received

a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs from the complainant and to repay

the said loan, he has issued the post dated cheque bearing

No.919503 dated 06.07.2015. When the cheque was

presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured as

"Account Closed". Legal notice was issued informing the

accused regarding dishonour of the cheque and calling

upon him to pay the cheque amount. The accused has not

repaid the cheque amount but has given evasive reply,

thereby he has committed the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly the complainant

prayed before the trial court to take cognizance of the

offence and to initiate legal action.

- 4 -

4.

The trial Court took cognizance of the offence.

Accused appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty

for the accusation made against him. The complainant

examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11 in

support of his contention. The accused has denied all the

incriminating materials available on record and got

examined DW.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.D1 and 2 in

support of his defence. The trial Court after taking into

consideration all those materials on record, came to the

conclusion that the complainant is successful in proving

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, convicted the accused as stated above. Being

aggrieved by the same the accused has preferred Criminal

Appeal No.104/2019. The first appellate court based on

the materials on record dismissed the same while

confirming the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by

the same the accused is before this Court.

- 5 -

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and there

is no representation. Hence his argument is taken as nil.

6.

Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant contended that on 02.07.2015

the accused had requested for hand loan and accordingly

an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank

account of the complainant and paid it to the accused,

towards repayment of the same. The cheque as per

Ex.P.1 was issued by the accused and when the same was

presented for encashment it was dishonoured as "Account

Closed". Even after issuance of legal notice the accused

has not repaid the cheque amount. Thereby he has

committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI

Act. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and has

marked documents Exs.P1 to P11. Ex.P.7 is the Bank

statement, Exs.P8 to 11 are the RTCs of complainant and

his wife to show his financial capacity. The accused has

not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.

Therefore, the trial Court and first appellate court were

- 6 -

right in convicting the accused. There are no reasons to

interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the first

appellate court. Hence he prays for dismissing the

revision petition.

7.

Perused the entire materials including the trial court

records.