A. B. MURGOD, J. ( 1 ) ADMITTED and heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition has been convicted of an offence under section 138, read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and has been ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 24,204 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was also rejected. Hence, the revision petition. ( 3 ) THE facts are, the petitioner and the respondent had business dealings and the petitioner had issued a cheque in a sum of Rs. 12,103 dated September 15, 1990, bearing No. 28929 drawn on hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd. , to the respondent. The respondent presented the cheque for encashment but, the same bounced and after due notice, the respondent initiated prosecution by lodging a complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner appeared and pleaded guilty and on his plea, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him as stated above. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge considered the question of legality of the sentence and found that the order of the learned Magistrate suffered from no infirmity and accordingly he dismissed the appeal. In this revision petition, records are secured and counsel on both sides are heard. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he was not supplied with the copy of the complaint and the petitioner did not know English and if he were apprised of all the facts, he would not have pleaded guilty. He also pointed out that the summons issued did not accompany the list of witnesses. He further contended that the plea "thappaithu" did not mount to pleading guilty. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner appeared voluntarily before the learned Magistrate and he pleaded guilty after seven months from the date of service of summons and he was fully aware of the complaint lodged against him and his contention that he did not know the prosecution allegations and that he did not plead guilty voluntarily knowing the allegations against him should not be accepted. ( 5 ) A perusal of the records before the learned Magistrate discloses that there is nothing on record to show that a copy of the complaint was duly served on the petitioner. ( 5 ) A perusal of the records before the learned Magistrate discloses that there is nothing on record to show that a copy of the complaint was duly served on the petitioner. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he did not understand English. But he appears to have signed the plea in english and the cheque also appears to have been signed in English. Signing in English is one thing but understanding the English language is entirely different. When it is asserted by the petitioner that he did not understand English, in the absence of material showing that he knows english, it cannot be presumed that he understands the English language. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate disclose that on account of the petitioner remaining absent on two occasions, coercive process by way of warrant was issued and his presence was secured. It is in this background the petitioner has proceeded to plead "thappaithu" to the accusation levelled against him in respect of offence under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act. "thappaithu". by itself does not amount to admitting the accusation levelled against him. This court has so held in an unreported decision in Sardar v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Revision Petition No. 1564 of 1988-decided on 21-11-1988 ). Therefore, having regard to the deficiencies in the prosecution case, viz. , absence of material showing service of copy of the complaint on the petitioner, insufficient material showing the petitioner's knowledge of english, his production before court under coercive process of warrant and his incomplete plea of "thappaithu" the learned Magistrate ought not to have accepted the plea of the petitioner to convict and sentence him for the offences alleged against him : His conviction and sentence are. therefore, set aside by allowing the revision petition. The matter is sent back to the learned magistrate for proceeding according to law from the stage of providing a copy of the complaint to the petitioner and recording his plea in the light of the observations made above.