Keshavanarayana, J.

This Revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 19.8.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.86/2004 dismissing the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein and affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna in CC No.457/2003. convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the N.I Act) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant being the value of the cheque.

2. The respondent herein is the complainant before the learned Magistrate. I shall refer to the parties herein with reference to their ranking in the Court below.

3. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I Act, interalia contending that the accused for the purpose of improving his business and for repayment of his loan, borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant on 20.5.2002 and for discharging the said liability, the accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.480735 dated 10.3.2003 for Rs.75,000/-drawn on Allahabad Bank, Mysore Branch and requested the complainant to present the said cheque for encashment on 10.3.2003. When the complainant presented the said cheque on 10.3.2003 for encashment through his Banker. the said cheque came to be returned with an endorsement `payment stopped by the drawer and for `insufficient funds on 28.3.2003. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 5.2003 informing the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered under the cheque. Though the accused received the said notice on 9.5.2003, he has neither replied the notice nor has complied

with the demand made therein. With these contents the complaint was filed on 17.2003.

4. After service of summons, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty for the accusations made against him and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial before the learned Magistrate, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The accused examined one Mahavir Jain as DW. 1 to prove his defence and got marked Ex.D.1.

6. During trial, the defence of the accused was that he had taken loan on his vehicle from one Mahaveer Financiers and at the time of taking loan from the said financiers, he had given two blank cheques bearing Nos.480734 and 480735 and on 12.2003 when he cleared the said loan, he took back those two blank cheques and thereafter those two cheques were found missing. It was also his defence that later when he received the notice from one of his ex-employee namely Shekar demanding him to pay the amount covered under one of the above two cheques, he came to know that the said Shekar had stolen those two cheques and the complainant has presented one of the two cheques. According to the accused, he was not due any amount to the complainant nor the cheque in question was issued for discharge of any legal liability due by him to the complainant.

7. After the parties led evidence, the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 210.2004 held that the complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question towards discharge of legal liability due by him to the complainant and that the cheque in question has been dishonoured when presented for encashment and inspite of service of notice on the accused, the accused has failed to comply with the demand made therein by paying the am