JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondent – accused in this appeal. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.455/2009 dated 1.2.2010 and consequently to restore the judgment in C.C.No.25864/2007 dated 4.5.2009 of the XII Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru City, convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’, for brevity). 3. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal are as under : The complainant – Sri Nagendra Credit Co-op Society Ltd., had filed a complaint in PCR No.15466/2007 before the Trial Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused – respondent in this appeal, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Subsequent to taking cognizance, summons were issued to the accused in C.C.No.25864/2007, where the accused had appeared through counsel and contested his case. Subsequently, the Trial Court had convicted the accused by its judgment dated 4.5.2009 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The said judgment was carried in appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court, on appreciating the evidence on record, had observed that the cheque was alleged to have been issued by the accused on 25.08.2007 for a sum of Rs.66,524/- which was marked as Exhibit P1. The said cheque was said to have been returned due to ‘insufficiency of funds’, which is at Exhibit P2. Hence, notice was issued to the accused – respondent on 6.9.2009, which is at Exhibit P3. Exhibit P5 is the postal acknowledgment showing that it was duly served on him. The complainant had also produced the Promissory Note Exhibit P6 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant dated 19.12.2004 and the surety letter Exhibit P9 executed by the accused of even date. He had also produced the alleged document executed by the accused and his surety towards the loan transaction which is at Exhibit P-11. It was the contention of the counsel for the accused that he had borrowed a loan of Rs.15,000/- on 19.12.2004 from the complainant Co-operative Bank, in respect of which he had issued a blank cheque by way of security. It was the contention of the counsel for the accused that he had borrowed a loan of Rs.15,000/- on 19.12.2004 from the complainant Co-operative Bank, in respect of which he had issued a blank cheque by way of security. He is also said to have executed two sureties as co-obligant for the said amount. Though the counsel had specifically contended that the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.15,000/- but not Rs.50,000/-, however, the loan documents revealed that the accused had borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/-. It was specifically contended that the cheque was issued for security purpose and not towards discharge of loan amount. Exhibit D-1 dated 5.7.2009, the memo issued by the complainant – Bank was for recovery of the loan amount of Rs.28,698/- from the accused. Whereas the cheque Exhibit P1 dated 25.08.2007 was issued for a sum of Rs.66,524/-. In order to clarify the differences regarding the amount due to the bank, the complainant had not produced any account extract of the loan account of the accused. In view of the variance in the demand issued by the bank and the cheque amount, it was clear that the cheque had been issued wholly for security purpose and not towards legally recoverable debt. Hence, the First Appellate Court acquitted the accused on the benefit of doubt that the cheque issued was not towards a transaction in respect of a legally recoverable debt. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant urges the following grounds that the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.455/2009 has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. His submission is that it is for the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and also under what circumstances he had issued the cheque. Further, if the cheque was not issued in discharge of a legal liability then accused is supposed to have taken appropriate action seeking return of his cheque. In case the accused fails to establish the reason for issuance of cheque and also why he did not seek return of the cheque then it is to be assumed that he had failed to rebut the presumption. Hence, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by adducing cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which the cheque was issued. Hence, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by adducing cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which the cheque was issued. The same not having been done, the Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused. But, the Lower Appellate Court had committed an error in reversing the conviction of the accused and thereby acquitting him. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the said judgment of the Lower Appellate Court calls for interference, which requires to be set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court be restored. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on evaluating the material on record, I find that there is no illegality committed by the Lower Appellate Court, which calls for interference. Though the counsel for the appellant vehemently contends as regards the accused rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, it is to be seen that the cheque was not issued by the accused – respondent towards a legally recoverable debt. It was issued as a security for the loan which he had borrowed from the complainant. The same is very clear from the difference seen in the demand made by the Bank and the cheque issued. In that, the demand made by the Bank was for a sum of Rs.28,698/- as on 5.7.2009, whereas the cheque amount reflected a sum of Rs.66,524/-. Even if it is assumed that the cheque was given to the complainant towards his legal liability in order to repay the loan that he had borrowed, the difference in the amount of the cheque is very huge which makes it impossible to believe the same. Further, the complainant – Bank has also not produced any account extract relating to the loan account of the accused. 6. For the above reasons, I find that there is no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal rendered by the First Appellate Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to revisit the impugned judgment. As the appeal is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 1.2.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.455/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bengaluru City is hereby confirmed.