JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Petitioner has been convicted by trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring two cheques amounting to Rs.10,000/- each and has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months with further directions that on realizing of fine amount an amount of Rs.20,000/- will be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. Judgment passed by trial Court has been affirmed by learned Sessions Judge by dismissing appeal alongwith application filed by petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence. Aggrieved by impugned judgment, present revision petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents on record. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that respondent-complainant has failed to prove on record requirement under law in order to draw presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He has relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case John K. Abraham versus Simon C. Abraham and another, reported in, (2014) 2 SCC 236 . Para of the judgment relied upon is being reproduced here-in-below:- “9. It has to be stated that in order to draw the presumption under Section 118 read along with 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had required funds for having advanced the money to the accused; that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant”. 5. Another issue raised by petitioner is that respondent-complainant has filed another complaint subsequent to present complaint stating therein that petitioner had issued number of cheques including cheques in question in present case in furtherance to an agreement arrived at between the parties and said the agreement is being relied upon by respondent-complainant in subsequent complaint whereas in present complaint, respondent-complainant has stated that cheques in question were issued against payment of amount credited to petitioner. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence before learned Sessions Judge to place complaint and agreement filed by respondent in subsequent case on record in the interest of justice. However, learned Sessions Judge committing a mistake, has rejected said application without considering the fact that additional evidence proposed to be led was not in knowledge of petitioner as same was received by petitioner with summon of another case served upon him subsequent to 05.08.2006 i.e. date of decision rendered by trial Court in present case. Date of filing of another complaint proposed to be placed on record as additional evidence is 04.09.2006. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-complainant has contended that there is presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of respondent-complainant. Petitioner-accused has not rebutted the same by leading any evidence. He has relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Anil Hada Versus Indian Acrylic Limited, reported in, AIR 2000 SC 145 stating that it was open to petitioner to adduce evidence to rebut said presumption but failure on the part of petitioner to lead any evidence to rebut presumption does not give any right to him to lead additional evidence. He has stated that all essential ingredients as required under law have been proved by and on behalf of the respondent-complainant including sending a registered letter/notice on same address of accused which has been mentioned by him in present petition. He has argued that respondent-complainant has led cogent and reliable evidence on record in his favour, whereas, petitioner has not rebutted the same by choosing not to lead any evidence. 7. From perusal of evidence on record, there is no likelihood of failure of justice in deciding present case without considering the additional evidence proposed to be placed on record. In absence of any evidence led during trial and also without any plea and suggestion to witnesses on behalf of petitioner during trial regarding issuance of cheques for reasons other than stated in complaint, petitioner is not entitled to lead proposed additional evidence. Additional evidence proposed to be led is not necessary to decide present case. Cheques in present case are not subject matter of complaint proposed to be placed on record as additional evidence. Additional evidence proposed to be led is not necessary to decide present case. Cheques in present case are not subject matter of complaint proposed to be placed on record as additional evidence. Moreover, additional evidence is to be led to substantiate evidence already placed on record or stand taken in defence but in present case, there is no defence taken or evidence led by petitioner during trial as is proposed to be led in additional evidence. The petitioner is proposing to lead evidence on issue which was never his defence or even part of defence. 8. Contention of petitioner that documents supposed to be placed on record were not in his knowledge prior to receiving summon in subsequent complaint is not true as agreement proposed to be placed on record as additional evidence is dated 29.05.2004 which is duly signed by petitioner and cheques mentioned in said agreement are also issued by petitioner. Present complaint was filed on 10.05.2005 and was decided on 05.08.2006. Despite knowledge of agreement dated 29.05.2004 petitioner had neither referred said agreement in defence nor has placed the same on record. Petitioner has not taken any defence nor has any question/suggestion been put to respondent-complainant that cheques in question were issued in pursuance to some agreement. Even in statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., petitioner has simply stated that he was innocent and did not want to lead evidence in defence. Petitioner is not entitled to invoke provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. to lead additional evidence in his favour. Findings of learned Sessions Judge, on this issue does not warrant interference. 9. In instant case amount involved is not so big so as to necessitate inviting evidence for proving availability of funds with respondent-complainant for crediting the said amount to petitioner. When amount of cheque is possible to be advanced in normal circumstances and no defence regarding capability of respondent-complainant to pay amount has been set up and proved, ratio of judgment in John K. Abraham case referred supra is not applicable. 10. Respondent-complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and Ramesh Sharma, Senior Assistant, Punjab National Bank, Bharari as PW-2 to prove his case. All necessary ingredients required under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been duly proved on record by leading unimpeachable evidence. In cross-examination, complainant had admitted that there are other 5-6 cheques issued by petitioner which were due. 10. Respondent-complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and Ramesh Sharma, Senior Assistant, Punjab National Bank, Bharari as PW-2 to prove his case. All necessary ingredients required under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been duly proved on record by leading unimpeachable evidence. In cross-examination, complainant had admitted that there are other 5-6 cheques issued by petitioner which were due. Defence taken in cross-examination is that respondent-complainant had received cheque from petitioner by deceiving him which suggestion has been denied by respondent-complainant. Respondent-complainant has also admitted that he was in possession of other cheques issued by petitioner which were of same series. Respondent-complainant has duly proved cheques Ex. C-1 and C-3, Memo of Bank Ex. C-2 and C-4, Notice Ex. C-5, Postal Receipts Ex. C-6 and statement of Accounts CW-2/A in accordance with law. There is no material on record rebutting evidence produced by respondent-complainant. 11. In view of above discussions, revision petition being devoid of merit warrants no interference under revisional jurisdiction of this Court and therefore revision petition is dismissed and judgments passed lower Courts are upheld. Rs.20,000/- out of fine amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by petitioner in the Court of learned JMIC, Barsar be remitted to Bank Account of respondent-complainant alongwith proportionate interest, if any, accrued thereupon after expiry of 90 days from today on furnishing of Bank Account Number by respondent-complainant. Remaining amount be dealt with as fine recovered in accordance with relevant provisions. Copy of Judgment alongwith entire record of trial Court as well as First Appellate Court be sent forthwith.