Judgment : 1. Though the matter posted today for admission with the consent of the Counsel it is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after call as ‘Act’ for short), on a trial held by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore and Confirmed in appeal before the Sessions Court. 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under’ I will be referring to the parties as per the rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of Convenience. The petitioner herein is the accused, whereas respondent is the complainant who filed the complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the accused owed a sum of Rs. 46,956.70 and to discharge the loan amount the accused issued a cheque dated 30-6-2002 for a sum of Rs.46,856.70 in favour of the complainant and assured that he has sufficient funds in his account. The complainant presented the cheque through the banker, which was returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The complainant sent a notice and the said notice was not claimed by the accused. He did not comply the notice and in the circumstances the complainant approached the Trial Court to take action under Section 138 of the Act. 4. The Trial Court took cognizance, process was issued , accused appeared before the Trial Court and after recording the plea the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence the documents Exs. P. 1 to P.7 were marked. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He has taken the defence of total denial. He examined D.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. D. 1 to D.5 in their evidence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and ordered to pay fine of Rs.60,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused approached Sessions Court and the appeal came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the conviction, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused approached Sessions Court and the appeal came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the conviction, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent. The point that arises for my consideration are: (1) Whether the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and the sentence thereon as ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed in the appeal is illegal and perverse? (2) What order ? 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the blank cheque was given as a security at the time of agreement – Ex. D.5 and that there is a condition in the said agreement that the transactions between the parties shall not exceed Rs. 2/-lakhs for which a security deposit was given and in the circumstances he submits that the complainant misused the blank cheque given and through there was no transaction exceeding the amount of Rs.2/- lakhs claimant has misused the cheque which was given as a security. On these grounds he has sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the accused has admitted the liability under letter-Ex. P.7 and he issued cheque, Ex. P. 1 for the amount of Rs.46,956.70 which was the among due as per Ex. P.7, and though the notice was issued after the return of the cheque for insufficient funds the accused did not comply the demand and submits that there is consistent cogent and acceptable material for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and in view of the concurrent findings of the conviction, the petitioner has not made out any such grounds to warrant interference. 8. I have scrutinised the evidence led by the parties and also the documents admitted in evidence. The fact that there is an agreement between the parties as per Ex. D.5 for participation in the auction of fish and sea products is not in dispute. As per the conditions between the parties, it is stated that the buyer’s limit of purchasing fish from the seller shall not exceed the security deposit amount under any circumstances. The fact that there is an agreement between the parties as per Ex. D.5 for participation in the auction of fish and sea products is not in dispute. As per the conditions between the parties, it is stated that the buyer’s limit of purchasing fish from the seller shall not exceed the security deposit amount under any circumstances. Relying on this clause, it is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the amount claimed is beyond the security deposit and therefore the complainant has no authority to claim the said amount Even assuming for the time being that there is such a condition and transaction is entered into for the amount exceeding Rs.2/- lakhs, I do not think that accused can take the benefit and seek the forfeiture of the amount for which he is due to the complainant. 9. It is relevant to note under Ex. P.7 dated 24-7.-2002 the accused has given letter to the complainant stating that there is an amount due to the extent of Rs. 46,956.70 and that on 30-6-2002 he has issued the cheque – Ex. P. 1 and the cheque was returned with an endorsement of insufficient funds and therefore he requested that some time may be granted to him for making payment instead of filing criminal case. This letter Ex. P.7 clearly establishes the fact that an amount of Rs. 46,956.70 was due and that the accused had issued the cheque –Ex. P.1 towards payment of the said debt or liability. When once the debt or the liability is proved or admitted then the issuance of cheque towards the payment of the said debt and liability, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the Act. The accused in the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 documents D. 1 to D.5 has not made out any such ground to rebut the presumption. The Court below have taken into consideration all the evidence lead by the parties and on proper appreciation of the material on record have come to the right conclusion. 10. This is a revision petition and this Court has limited powers, unless the petitioner makes out such grounds to hold that there is illegality or perversity in the order the evidence led cannot be reappreciated. 10. This is a revision petition and this Court has limited powers, unless the petitioner makes out such grounds to hold that there is illegality or perversity in the order the evidence led cannot be reappreciated. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no merit, so far as conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is Concerned 11. So far as compensation is concerned, the Trial Court awarded Rs. 60,000/-but taking into consideration the condition of the petitioner for which he has been placed and discharged the liability he has to pay the amount which is due, I think the interest of justice would be met if the compensation is reduced to Rs.55,000/-. Hence I answer the point partly affirmative and partly negative, and proceed to pass the following order. Petition is allowed in part affirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The amount of compensation payable is reduced to Rs.55,000/-and in default of the payment of compensation, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.