JUDGMENT : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (5) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2005 in C.C. No. 720 of 2002 passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, acquitting the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The unsuccessful complainant of C.C. No. 720 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the N.I. Act") against the 1st respondent/Accused - M/s. Bhaskarteja Chits and Finance Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director E. Madhav Rao, impugning the acquittal judgment dated 15.12.2005 of the trial Court, preferred this appeal raising the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the trial went wrong with improper appreciation of the evidence on record and the acquittal judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the trial Court ought to have seen that Ex. P.1 cheque dated 6.1.2002 was admittedly issued for a legally enforceable debt and once that was dishonoured and not paid and inspite of receiving the legal notice, admittedly, the Accused is liable for punishment for the offence made out under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for not able to discharge the burden lies on him to rebut the presumption or onus and that the trial Court should have seen that even the Accused, as D.W. 1, came to the witness box and admitted about the complainant subscribing two chits and liable to pay Rs. 98,000/- and that Ex. P.1 cheque, dated 6.1.2002 for Rs. 64,744/- admittedly issued, even pleaded by creating Ex. D.6 receipt dated 18.1.2002, as if Rs. 50,000/- cash paid on 18.1.2002, it is unknown as to why the so called cash payment made and why not fully paid with a little balance left unpaid and even later not even taken back Ex. P.1 cheque on payment of amount and that itself sufficient to prosecute the Accused, however, the trial Court went wrong in acquitting the Accused and hence sought to set aside the acquittal judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused by allowing the appeal. 2. P.1 cheque on payment of amount and that itself sufficient to prosecute the Accused, however, the trial Court went wrong in acquitting the Accused and hence sought to set aside the acquittal judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused by allowing the appeal. 2. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Accused that the trial Court was right in coming to a just conclusion by placing reliance on Exs. D.6 and D.7 receipts and for this Court, while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere to reverse said acquittal judgment of the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 3. Perused the material on record. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience, as "the complainant" and "the Accused", respectively. 4. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:-- " (1) Whether the Accused issued Ex. P.1 cheque and, if so, how far the Accused could rebut the presumption against him and in favour of the complainant of the cheque issued was for the legally enforceable debt and, if so, whether the trial Court went wrong in acquitting the Accused and it requires interference by this Court, while sitting in appeal, and with what observations and conclusions? (2) To what relief?" In re. to Point No. 1: 5- (A). Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is beneficial to quote; the provisions incorporated in Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act make a civil transaction to be an offence by fiction of law and with certain (rebuttable) presumptions that shall be drawn. Sections. 138 to 142 are incorporated in the N.I. Act, 1881 as Chapter XVII by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1981 (66 of 1988) which came into force w.e.f. 01-04-1989 and the N.I. Act was further amended by Act, 2002 (55 of 2002) which came into force w.e.f. 06-02-2003 incorporating new sections143 to 147 in this Chapter XVII and further some of the existing provisions not only of the Chapter XVII but also of other Chapters amended to overcome the defects and drawbacks in dealing with the matters relating to dishonour of cheques. 5- (B). 5- (B). The object and intention of these penal provisions of the Chapter XVII (Sections 138 - 147), in particular, Sections 138 & 139 (besides civil remedy), are to prevent issuing of cheques in playful manner or with dishonest intention or with no mind to honour or without sufficient funds in the account maintained by the drawer in Bank and induce the Payee/Holder or Holder in due course to act upon it. The remedy available in a Civil Court is a long drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee. Since a cheque that is dishonoured may cause uncountable loss, injury or inconvenience to the Payee due to the latter's unexpected disappointment, these provisions incorporated are in order to provide a speedy remedy to avoid inconvenience and injury to the Payee and further to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing credibility of the instruments as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment and to inculcate faith in the efficacy of Banking operations - Goa Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'souza, 2004 (1) ALT(Crl.) 135 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 2035 . 5- (C). To fulfill the objective, the Legislature while amending the Act has made the following procedure: In the opening words of the Section 138 it is stated: "Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid,------------, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act (See Sec. 143), be punished ------. Provided, nothing contained in this section shall apply unless,- (a), (b); and (c) Explanation-- (supra)." " (i) Under Section 138 a deeming offence is created by fiction of law. (ii) An explanation is provided to Section 138 to define the w o r d s "debt or other liability" to mean a legally enforceable debt or other liability." (iii) In Section 139, a presumption is ingrained that the holder of the cheque received it in discharge of debt or other liability. (iv) Disallowing a defence in Section 140 that drawer has no reason to believe that cheque would be dishonoured. (iv) Disallowing a defence in Section 140 that drawer has no reason to believe that cheque would be dishonoured. (v) As per Section 146 (new section) the production of the Bank's slip or Memo with official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured is prima facie evidence for the Court to presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque unless such fact is disproved by the accused." 5- (D). Further the provision for issuing notice within thirty days under section 138 after dishonour is to afford an opportunity to the Drawer of the cheque to rectify his mistakes or negligence or in action and to pay the amount within fifteen days of receipt of notice, failing which the drawer is liable for prosecution and penal consequences. 5- (E). Reasonability of cause for nonpayment is not at all a deciding factor. Mens rea is irrelevant. It is a strict liability incorporated in public interest. 5- (F). Availability of alternative remedy is no bar to the prosecution 5- (G). In the words-where any cheque, the word any suggests that for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a Banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the liability cannot be avoided in the event of the cheque stands returned by the Banker unpaid. 6-A. The Apex Court in Narayan Menon v. State of Kerala (2006) 3 SCC 30 held that once the complainant shown that the cheque was drawn by the accused on the account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount in favour of the complainant from out of that account for its discharge and the same when presented returned by the Bank unpaid for insufficiency of funds or exceeds arrangement, such person shall be deemed to have been committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. What Section139 of the Act speaks of the presumption against the accused to rebut is the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in Section 138 of the Act for discharge of debt. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Accused need not enter into the witness box and examine other witnesses in support of his defence. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Accused need not enter into the witness box and examine other witnesses in support of his defence. Accused need not disprove the prosecution case in its entirety. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the "prudent man". 6-B. The presumption that further applied among clauses (a) to (g) of Section 118 of N.I. Act also, like the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, as per Section 4 of the Evidence Act, is a rebuttable presumption for which the burden is on the accused, however, to rebut the presumption if a case is made out by accused either by pointing out from the case of the complainant including very documents and cross-examination or by examining any person and need not be always by coming to witness box vide decision in Kumar Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 . 6-C. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in Rangappa v. Mohan, 2010 (3) ALT(Crl.) 339 (SC) : 2010 (5) SCJ 700 : AIR 2010 SC 1898 (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to Goa Plast's case (supra), Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, AIR 2008 (2) ALT(Crl.) 170 (SC) : 2008 (4) SCJ 749 : 2008 SC 1325 by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability is not correct, though in other respects correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001 SC 3897 holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumption under138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, AIR 1999 SC 1008 para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability either direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than bare denial of the passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence, to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held referring the M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 (1) ALT(Crl.) 230 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 182 that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden. It was concluded referring to the above, including of Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and others, 2009 (1) SCJ 554 : AIR 2008 SC 2898 paras-14 and 15 that the initial presumption lays in favour of the complainant and Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause, which has been included in furtherance of the legitimate objection of improving the credibility of the negotiable instruments. While Section 138 specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions and the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clause and the accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof and in the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden to discharge by preponderance of probabilities by raising creation of doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to fail the prosecution and for that the accused can rely on the material submitted by the complainant also in order to raise such a defence and he may not need to adduce any evidence of his own. 6-D. It was also observed in para-15 that the accused appear to be aware of the fact that the cheque was with the complainant, further-more the very fact that the accused has failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act leads to the inference that there was merit in the complainant's version. It was also held by this court way back in Chapala Hanumayya v. Kavuri Venkateswarlu 1971 (1) An.W.R. 65 that having received and acknowledged the statutory legal notice after dishonour of cheque, non-giving of reply to said legal notice, improbablises the defence version, as any prudent person under the said circumstances should have, but for no defence to reply. 7- (A). From above legal position, coming to decide on the facts from oral, circumstantial and documentary evidence, how far it is proved the case of the complainant and from drawing of presumptions and inferences if any, how far rebutted by accused concerned. 8. The fact that Ex. 7- (A). From above legal position, coming to decide on the facts from oral, circumstantial and documentary evidence, how far it is proved the case of the complainant and from drawing of presumptions and inferences if any, how far rebutted by accused concerned. 8. The fact that Ex. P.1 cheque dated 6.1.2002 was issued by the Accused of the chits subscribed by the complainant for the amounts due under the chits subscribed not in dispute. Even from the evidence on record, there were more than two chits subscribed by the complainant. Ex. P.3 is the cheque dishonoured Memo dated 20.6.2002 for stop payment instructions from presentation of the cheque for encashment under Ex. P.2 voucher dated 18.6.2002 and the bank account of the accused viz., Canara Bank, Warangal, issued Memo dated 19.6.2002, covered by Ex. P.4. It is from this, after receiving intimation of dishonour under Ex. P.3 cheque return Memo through the collecting bank i.e., Karoor Vysya Bank, Hanamkonda, the complainant issued Ex. P.5 legal notice dated 1.2.2002, which is equivalent to Ex. D.3, acknowledged by the accused under Ex. P.6 Postal acknowledgement and issued reply notice dated 10.7.2002 under Ex. P.7, which is equivalent to Ex. D.4, it is by referring to Exs. D.6 and D.7 receipts dated 18.1.2002 and 24.1.2002. In fact, the said reply, which is crucial for the purpose of the case to some extent reads that the complainant participated in the chits as a subscriber run by the Accused and the Accused issued Ex. P.1 cheque bearing No. 587393 for Rs. 64,744/- drawn on Karoor Vysya Bank, Hanamkonda, from which the complainant became the highest bidder, instead -of paying the amount claimed, issued said cheque. The reply further reads that it is subsequently the Accused paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash on 18.1.2002 and obtained Ex. D.6 receipt. Having issued Ex. P.1 cheque for Rs. 64,744/- admittedly on 6.1.2002, for the so called payment of Rs. 50,000/- within 12 days under Ex. D.6, it is quite improbable to believe as to why the Accused not paid fully the amount of Rs. 64,744/-, further why did not claim back Ex. P.1 cheque by altering or issuing another cheque, if at all for Rs. 14,744/-. Even a reading of Ex. 50,000/- within 12 days under Ex. D.6, it is quite improbable to believe as to why the Accused not paid fully the amount of Rs. 64,744/-, further why did not claim back Ex. P.1 cheque by altering or issuing another cheque, if at all for Rs. 14,744/-. Even a reading of Ex. D.6 contents of the receipt, which was referred as cash voucher, amount paid to Sri S. Ravinder from L.T. No. 3C - 33 towards chit part payment account, instead of vide cheque bearing No. 587393, dated 6.1.2002 of Karoor Vysya Bank Limited, Hanamkonda, even taken for arguments sake, the same is towards part payment, though still remained unpaid an amount of Rs. 14,744/- as on that date, even as per the very reply notice dated 10.7.2002 covered by Ex. P.7, equivalent to Ex. D.4, of the Accused addressed to the counsel of the complainant. Even coming to Ex. D.7 receipt dated 24.1.2002, which is the so called amount of Rs. 75,000/- payment on 24.1.2002, the contents read that the amount paid to Sri S. Ravinder towards the bid payable amount in L.T. No. 3C 34. It is important to note that Ex. D.6 receipt was for L.T. No. 3C 33, whereas Ex. D.7 receipt was for L.T. No. 3C 34. Even from its very showing, there were two chits in which the complainant is a subscriber, leave about others, and the so called two payments, apart from not proved, either by sending to an Expert, as the burden of discharge is on the Accused, having admittedly issued Ex. P.1 cheque, or by examining any person acquainted with the writing or the persons present at the time of the so called payment, but for self-serving testimony of D.W. 1 -Accused coming to the witness box with permission under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., that this in no way serve any purpose by preponderance of probability, either to rebut the presumption under reverse onus clause lying on the Accused or to prove the plea of discharge. Apart from the very own showing supra, including from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 and the evidence of the Accused as D.W. 1, these two payments are not fully for Ex. P.1 cheque. Even Ex. D.6 receipt taken from the contents as a part payment only for Ex. P.1 cheque and Ex. P.7 is equivalent to Ex. Apart from the very own showing supra, including from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 and the evidence of the Accused as D.W. 1, these two payments are not fully for Ex. P.1 cheque. Even Ex. D.6 receipt taken from the contents as a part payment only for Ex. P.1 cheque and Ex. P.7 is equivalent to Ex. D.4 reply itself speaks that further amount of Rs. 14,744/- due and it is unknown as to why the Accused did not pay, if at all Ex. D.6 is genuine of payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 18.1.2002 as part payment for Ex. P.1 cheque on 6.1.2002, atleast immediately after Ex. P.6 receipt dated 18.1.2002, for the small amount of Rs. 14,744/-. Further, inevitably the Court in exercise of its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, though otherwise not as an Expert, entitled to compare, within its duty that a comparison of Exs. D.6 and D.7 no way correlates the signatures of the same person, more particularly with reference to the complaint, there is also cross-examination of P.W. 1 with reference to it from which even the Court taken this ordeal from the Accused, not chosen to prove the so called part payment, even denied the signatures on the receipts under Exs. D.6 and D.7 by the complainant as P.W. 1 by sending them to Expert. From this also, apart from the other probabilities of the case, it shows that Exs. D.6 and D.7 are not genuine to rely, particularly Ex. D.6 relating to Ex. P.1 cheque, apart from the very admission, still Rs. 14,744/- is due and even thereafter without liquidation of the same, even by the time of presentation of Ex. P.1 cheque for collection, the Accused has issued stop payment advise to the banker from which the amount of the cheque not honoured and even not paid within the statutory period of 15 days after receipt of Ex. P.5 legal notice, equivalent of Ex. D.3 notice dated 1.7.2002, as contemplated under Section 138, proviso to clause (b), and from the accrual of cause of action under Section142 (b) of the N.I. Act for nothing shown paid of the amount, he is liable for prosecution. P.5 legal notice, equivalent of Ex. D.3 notice dated 1.7.2002, as contemplated under Section 138, proviso to clause (b), and from the accrual of cause of action under Section142 (b) of the N.I. Act for nothing shown paid of the amount, he is liable for prosecution. The trial Court did not properly appreciate these facts and went wrong, while appreciation of evidence, in acquitting the Accused by dismissal of the complaint and as such the trial Court's acquittal judgment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and the accused is to be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 9. More particularly, from the propositions in M/s. Thekkan and Company v. Smt. M. Anitha, 2004 CRI.L.J. 58, that nothing precluded the Court from taking into account prior payments made, if any, before presentation of the disputed cheque or before receipt of notice for deciding whether amount due under cheque has been paid or not, for that the burden is always on the Accused, who pleads that the so called discharge is proved. It further held that for consideration of the payment for discharge must be before accrual, the cause of action under Section 142 (b) of the N.I. Act. 10. Further more, in the said expression of the Kerala High Court in R. Gopikuttan Pillai v. Sankara Narayanan Nair, (2004) 1 BC 34 in Crl. A. No. 270 of 1997, dated 19.3.2003 that the accused is bound to prove the payment of entire amount within 15 days of receipt of notice intimating dishonour of the cheque and demanding for payment under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Even part payment, whether before or after the notice, cannot absolve the Accused from criminal liability for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was therefrom held that the trial Court went wrong by believing the so called part payment in acquitting the accused by reversing the acquittal judgment by the Kerala High Court. In the factual matrix therein, point No. 1 is answered. 11. Accordingly, this point is answered. In re. Point No. 2: 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 15.12.2005 in C.C. No. 720 of 2002 passed by the trial Court and the 1st respondent/Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 16.04.2014: 13. 11. Accordingly, this point is answered. In re. Point No. 2: 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 15.12.2005 in C.C. No. 720 of 2002 passed by the trial Court and the 1st respondent/Accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 16.04.2014: 13. Even posted the matter from 09.04.2014 by reversing the acquittal judgment of the trial Court finding the accused guilty allowing the appeal to this day for hearing of the accused on sentence, the accused did not appear and thus taken that he has no say. As the Ex. P.1 cheque amount is for Rs. 64,744/- dated 06.01.2002. It was held by the apex Court in Somnath Sarka v. Utpal Basu Mallick, 2014 (1) ALT(Crl.) 145 (SC) : 2013 (8) SCJ 753 that the Act not contemplated grant of compensation but envisages imposition of fine not exceeding twice the amount of dishonoured cheque and out of said fine amount, the complainant be compensated under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and that 'unlike for other forms of crime, the punishment here (insofar as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque." Having regard to the above and from the submission by the appellant/complainant of the endeavour is to recover the amount of compensation from out of fine or otherwise, rather than sentencing the accused to jail, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the day and to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and out of which an amount of Rs. 70,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid towards fine to the State. 80,000/- and out of which an amount of Rs. 70,000/- shall be paid to the complainant towards compensation and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid towards fine to the State. It is thereby directed the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of accused of warrant to undergo the sentence in that open Court and also to cause recover the fine amount under Section 431 read with Section 421 of Cr.P.C. by issuing warrant levying the fine with default sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment as per Sections 65 to 68 read with 53 (6) I.P.C.