Judgment :- 1. Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.09.2005, in C.A.No.132/2005, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, whereby the revision petitioner/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.14,74,805/- as compensation, in default in payment, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, confirming the order passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No.240/1998 on 07.04.2005. 2. The respondent/complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the revision petitioner is a dealer of cements and in the course of their business, he issued a cheque bearing No.311687 dated 30.06.1997 for Rs.14,74,805/-, which was marked as Ex.P2. When the cheque under Ex.P2 was presented for encashment and the same was returned as "Funds Insufficient", which was marked as Ex.P3. A statutory notice was issued by the respondent/complainant on 10.07.1997 under Ex.P4 and an acknowledgement card received by the accused was marked as Ex.P5. Andhra Cements' Director's Board has passed a resolution for filing the case and the same was marked as Ex.P1. After receipt of the statutory notice issued by the respondent/complainant, neither he replied nor he repaid the payment. Hence, the respondent/complainant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedure, since the accused pleaded not guilty, examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 and perused the documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P6, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him as indicated above, against which, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.132/2005 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/accused. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is a Commission Agent in bricks, sand and other building materials. He is not a dealer in cements. He approached the respondent/complainant and asked them to appoint him as a dealer. But the respondent/complainant neither appointed him as a dealer nor supplied him any cement. The respondent/complainant never produced any Dealership Certificate for appointing him as a dealer. He is not a dealer in cements. He approached the respondent/complainant and asked them to appoint him as a dealer. But the respondent/complainant neither appointed him as a dealer nor supplied him any cement. The respondent/complainant never produced any Dealership Certificate for appointing him as a dealer. No General Power of Attorney has been filed. Hence, he prayed for allowing of the revision. 5. Even though the respondent/complainant was served, no one was represented on behalf of them. 6. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and materials available on record. 7. Now this Court has to decide that whether the issuance of cheque has been admitted by the revision petitioner/accused and whether the respondent is entitled to presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the cheque was presented in the Bank for encashment, it was returned. Hence, statutory notice was issued. 8. Now it is pertinent to note that no reply was sent by the revision petitioner/accused to the statutory notice issued by the respondent/complainant. The revision petitioner/accused neither cross-examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 nor let in any evidence to rebutt the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. While perusing the evidence of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials, he never disputed the cheque that he issued under Ex.P2. So the respondent/complainant is entitled to presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it is rebuttable presumption. The revision petitioner neither cross-examined the witnesses nor let in any evidence to rebutt the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that Ex.P2-cheque was issued for discharging the existing liability of amount due for the cement he purchased. In such circumstances, Ex.P2 cheque was issued only for discharging of enforceable legal debt. 9. The respondent/complainant herein has received the cheque under Ex.P2 and the same was presented in the Bank, but it was returned as "Funds Insufficient", which was marked as Ex.P3. The evidence of P.W.2 Bank Manager and P.W.3 Clerk, corroborated the same stating that the cheque was returned as "Funds Insufficient". A statutory notice was issued under Ex.P4 and an acknowledgment card was received under Ex.P5. But, neither the revision petitioner/accused sent a reply nor he repaid that amount. The evidence of P.W.2 Bank Manager and P.W.3 Clerk, corroborated the same stating that the cheque was returned as "Funds Insufficient". A statutory notice was issued under Ex.P4 and an acknowledgment card was received under Ex.P5. But, neither the revision petitioner/accused sent a reply nor he repaid that amount. Hence, the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been proved. So the revision petitioner/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The non-filing of the dealership is no way affected the case of the respondent/complainant. Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court considered this aspect in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the conviction passed by both the Courts below does not warrant any interference. 10. Regarding the quantum of sentence, both the Courts below have considered the nature of the offence and sentenced him to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.14,74,805/- as compensation, in default in payment, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, which are fair and proper and does not warrant any interference. 11. In fine, The Criminal Revision is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are hereby confirmed. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner/accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.