JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No.08(1) of 2013, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act'). 2. The Trial Court found the accused-petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-in default of payment to suffer SI for 3(three) months. The Appellate Court reduced the fine to an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-and in default of payment to suffer the same sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji appearing for the accused-petitioner very candidly submitted that the complainant has failed to prove by adducing convincing evidence that there was a legally enforceable debt or other liability. He has submitted that in reply to the notice issued by the complainant, after the cheque was dis-honored, the accused-petitioner clearly stated that the cheque was not issued to discharge any legally enforceable debt but it was as a security in course of business transaction between the accused and the complainant. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji heavily relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Vijay Vs. Laxman and Another, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 and submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the defence case of the accused-petitioner and arrived at a wrong finding. 5. On the other hand learned counsel, Mr. Majumder has submitted that the complainant discharged his duty that there was a legally enforceable debt by producing evidence of the books of accounts. So, the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji, according to learned counsel, Mr. Majumder does not stand and that the fact of case of Vijay (supra) is distinguishable. He has referred the case of Jayanta Banik Vs. Ritish Sarkar and Anr., reported in (2016) 2 TLR 778 and submitted that once the complainant discharged his initial burden, burden shifts on the accused to prove that the cheque was not for any legally enforceable debt. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay (Supra) has elaborately discussed the impact of presumption available under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay (Supra) has elaborately discussed the impact of presumption available under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. In the present case at the time of his examination under Section 313 CrPC the accused in response to question number 6 admitted that he had issued the cheque bearing No.110560 dated 17.08.2007 drawn on Agartala Co-operative Urban Bank Limited for an amount of Rs.70,314/-and that it was dishonored on the ground of “payment stopped by the drawer”. He has also admitted that thereafter demand notice was issued and he received the demand notice. 7. It is true in reply to the demand notice the accused-petitioner stated that he has issued the cheque as a security for extending him credit facilities for the period from 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2006. DW-1 i.e., an employee of the accused has stated the fact. But on record I find that in addition of the oral evidence the complainant proved the copies of his books of accounts where the particular amount has been shown as the debt due to the accused because of the business transactions between the complainant and the accused. Once the complainant discharged his initial burden, the accused has to prove the contrary that the cheque was not meant for a legally enforceable debt. 8. In the case of Vijay (Supra) the fact was that the complainant was a dairy owner and the accused was a milk supplier. The complainant used to make advance payment to the milk supplier for a year and further the complainant used to obtain a blank cheque from the milk supplier as a guarantee. The fact of that case, which was brought on record was that the accused supplied milk for the year and the amount was also settled and thereafter accused demanded back the cheque which was given by him as a security, but the complainant did not return him and on that issue there was a physical assault and an FIR was lodged by the accused. The complainant thereafter presented the cheque in the bank saying that there was an amount due to be paid by the accused. But how the amount was due that was not elaborated in the complain or in the evidence. 9. The fact of that case and the fact of the present case are quite different. I cannot agree with learned counsel, Mr. But how the amount was due that was not elaborated in the complain or in the evidence. 9. The fact of that case and the fact of the present case are quite different. I cannot agree with learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji that the ratio of that decision can fairly be applied in this Case. In the present case there was a business transaction between the accused and the complainant. According to the complainant the amount of Rs.70,314/-was due to be paid by the accused and in support of his contention the complainant proved copies of the books of accounts. 10. The accused did not deny the issuance of cheque and the fact that he has stopped payment of the cheque. In reply to the notice the accused took the plea that the account was not settled. But to that effect except oral evidence of DW-1 who is an employee of the accused no other documentary evidence was produced, therefore we cannot say that the accused discharged his burden of proving that the cheque was issued as a security and not for any legally enforceable debt. 11. The argument candidly advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji, therefore, is not acceptable and the punishment, as I find, is very lenient and no interference is called for. 12. The revisional application, therefore, stands dismissed. 13. Send back the L.C. records along with the copy of the judgment.