ORDER : Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties on both sides, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. This revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner-accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the XIV ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in C.C. No. 35678 of 2010 and also the judgment and order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Mayohall Unit, M.G. Road, Bengaluru, in Crl. Appeal No. 606 of 2012. 3. Brief facts of the case of complainant before the trial Court are that the complainant is a company engaged in the business of growing broiler chicken, developing, maintenance and supervision of chicks into full meat broiler birds. There is transaction between the complainant and the accused. The accused in order to discharge the legal debts, issued a cheque bearing No.0147631 dated 12.01.2010 for Rs.3,77,899/-. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with shara funds insufficient. The complainant issued legal notice dated 2.2.2010 through RPAD to both addresses of accused calling upon to pay the cheque amount. The accused received the notice and issued false reply denying the averments made in the notice. The accused issued the cheque without keeping sufficient amount in his account knowing fully well that the cheque would be dishonoured for ‘funds insufficient’. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’). 4. To prove its case on the side of the complainant, one witness is examined as P.W.1 and the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.61 got marked. On the side of the defence, one witness is examined as D.W.1 and no documents are produced. The trial Court after considering the materials, both oral and documentary, ultimately held that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted him and imposed sentence to pay total fine of Rs.4,25,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for one year. Being aggrieved by the same, when the accused preferred an appeal, even the first appellate Court, after considering the materials placed on record before it, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, when the accused preferred an appeal, even the first appellate Court, after considering the materials placed on record before it, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. The matter was called in the morning session and as there was no representation on the side of the revision petitioner, this Court appointed Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in disposing of the matter. When the matter is called again in the afternoon session at 2.30 p.m., the learned Counsel Sri Diwakar appearing for the revision petitioner is also present. Therefore, I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel Sri Diwakar appearing for the revision petitioner, learned Amicus Curiae Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj and the learned Counsel Sri B.R. Krishna appearing for the respondent-complainant. 6. The sum and substance of the arguments on the side of the revision petitioner is that the chicks were supplied by the complainant company to the revision petitioner for nourishment and development. Many of the chicks died because of some decease and also because of seasonable variations as it was cold season. 7. Learned Counsel Sri Diwakar for the revision petitioner made submission that there was no many transactions as such giving raise to monetary life on the part of the revision petitioner. When the chicks died due to the decease and also due to the weather conditions, the same was informed to the complainant company by the revision petitioner then and there only. The learned Counsel made submission that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any enforceable debt, and as such, it is only by way of security that the cheque was issued. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that these material aspects were not at all appreciated and considered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The trial Court has wrongly proceeded to convict the accused and first appellate Court confirmed the said conviction order of the trial Court. 8. Sri. Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, the learned Amicus Curiae made submission that the transaction in between the complainant and the accused is in the nature of service to develop the chicks, protect them and thereafter, the accused has to return back the same to the complainant. 8. Sri. Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, the learned Amicus Curiae made submission that the transaction in between the complainant and the accused is in the nature of service to develop the chicks, protect them and thereafter, the accused has to return back the same to the complainant. Hence, he submitted that there is no question of any enforceable debt, as such, in this transaction. The learned Amicus Curiae has also made submission that the complainant claimed Rs.3,77,899/- in which the complainant has not stated as to how he quantified the said amount and there is no basis and no material is placed before the Court as such. This aspect also goes to the root of the matter and both the Courts have ignored the material aspects and hence, he submitted that the matter requires consideration. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent complainant made submission that there is no dispute with regard to the supply of chicks to the revision petitioner is concerned. He submitted that totally 25,000 chicks were supplied to the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner had the duty to nourish, develop and then to return back to the complainant company. The learned Counsel further made submission that so far as the death of 3,000 chicks is concerned, though it is contended by the revision petitioner that it was intimated to the complainant, no supporting material has been produced by the revision petitioner which has also been observed by the trial Court. The learned Counsel submitted that the issuance of cheque and signature is admitted. When that is so, if the instrument is dishonoured, the burden is upon the accused person to rebut the presumption raised under the relevant provisions of the N.I. Act which he has not done in this case. Hence the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have correctly assessed the materials placed on record and came to the right conclusion in holding that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Further, there are concurrent findings regarding the factual aspects and this Court, in the revision petition, cannot interfere and re-appreciate all those things. Hence, submitted to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and the judgment and orders of the Courts below. 11. Further, there are concurrent findings regarding the factual aspects and this Court, in the revision petition, cannot interfere and re-appreciate all those things. Hence, submitted to dismiss the revision petition. 10. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and the judgment and orders of the Courts below. 11. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it refers to the oral evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents produced in support of the case. It is observed by the trial Court in its judgment that the supply of 25,000 chicks to the revision petitioner by the complainant company is not in dispute and it was with the specific purpose of making growth of the chicks, developing them and to return back the same to the complainant. The trial Court has also observed in its judgment that looking to the oral evidence of D.W.1revision petitioner, his specific defence is that the complainant supplied the underdeveloped chicks and some of them were dead and he could not give all the chicks supplied by the complainant. The death of 3,000 chicks was intimated to the complainant, but the trial Court has observed that the revision petitioner has not produced any letter of intimation in this case. The revision petitioner has accepted notice. In the absence of any specific material, only on the oral assertion that the revision petitioner intimated the death of the chicks, unless it is supported by the positive material, cannot be said that he has established his defence. So far as the issuance of cheques is concerned, looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it goes to show that the accused has admitted his signature on the instrument and when the instrument was presented, it was dishonoured. 12. As to the passing of consideration and the instrument in discharge of legally enforceable debt, presumption can be raised in favour of the complainant. So far as the discharge of legally enforceable debt, it is the burden on the part of the accused to produce the material to rebut the said presumption. But looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it is observed that no such material is produced to rebut the said presumption. So far as the discharge of legally enforceable debt, it is the burden on the part of the accused to produce the material to rebut the said presumption. But looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it is observed that no such material is produced to rebut the said presumption. Accordingly, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accused issued a cheque in discharge of the legally enforceable debt and he has failed to pay the amount. Hence, he has committed the offence. When the validity of the said judgment was questioned before the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court has also referred to the materials placed on record, oral and documentary evidence of the parties and ultimately, came to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Therefore, looking to the judgment and orders of the Courts below, I do not find any illegality and they are in accordance with the materials placed on record. 13. As it is rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-complainant, this Court in the revision petition cannot re-appreciate the entire materials like the first appellate Court on the factual aspects. The scope is limited. The revision petitioner has not made out the case to interfere with the judgment and orders of the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. In view of the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, Advocate, as Amicus-Curiae, Registry is hereby directed to pay the sum of Rs.4,000/- to the said Advocate as honorarium.