ORDER : 1. The petitioner after his conviction and sentence in Complaint Case No. C/1-1335 of 2008 approached the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2011, however, it has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.12.2011. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that once the accused-petitioner has discharged the initial onus by showing that the consideration did not exist the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands rebutted and now the complainant must prove that the cheques were issued in discharge of any legal debt or liability. 3. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in “M. S. Narayana Menon alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , “Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Payrelal” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 35 and “Reverend Mother Marykutty Vs. Reni C. Kottaram and Another” reported in (2013) 1 SCC 327 . 4. In the complaint case, the complainant has pleaded that the accused-petitioner approached him on 28.04.2008 for loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- for purchase of a flat. He made representation to the complainant that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-has been sanctioned by the bank for purchase of a flat and if he does not pay the aforesaid amount the allotment may be cancelled. The complainant arranged and gave Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioner who issued two post-dated cheques bearing no. 512278 dated 21.05.2008 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and no. 168385 dated 19.05.2008 for Rs.3,50,000/-. Both the cheques were presented to the State Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, however, dishonored due to insufficiency of fund vide cheque return memo dated 26.05.2008. The complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 06.06.2008 and thereafter has instituted the complaint case. 5. During the trial, the complainant examined himself and the petitioner has examined two witnesses besides examining himself in the case. Both the cheques, cheque deposit slip, cheque return memo, postal receipt, copy of legal notice and its acknowledgment etc. were tendered in evidence by the complainant which were marked as Exhibits. 6. The accused-petitioner has produced certified copies of orders dated 26.03.2008 and 04.04.2008 passed in Insolvency Case No. 02 of 2008, copy of the insolvency application, a certified copy of the notice issued in the insolvency case and certified copy of Vakalatnama filed by Mr. were tendered in evidence by the complainant which were marked as Exhibits. 6. The accused-petitioner has produced certified copies of orders dated 26.03.2008 and 04.04.2008 passed in Insolvency Case No. 02 of 2008, copy of the insolvency application, a certified copy of the notice issued in the insolvency case and certified copy of Vakalatnama filed by Mr. K. V. Rao who appeared on behalf of the accused in the insolvency case. 7. The defence raised by the accused is founded on the aforesaid documents to prima-facie establish that after the insolvency case was instituted by the accused, to put pressure on him the complainant has instituted the complaint case. 8. In support of his stand the petitioner has pleaded that a notice was issued in the insolvency case on 04.04.2008 and he entered his appearance through his counsel on 26.05.2008 whereas this complaint case was filed on 22.07.2008. The petitioner has taken a stand that he has received loan of Rs.2,90,000/- and not Rs. 5,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant and both the cheques which the complainant claims were given to him in lieu of the loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- were not given to him rather one of the cheques was given to Raj Kumar Prasad. In fact, one blank cheque was given to the complainant as security and other cheque was given to one Raj Kumar Prasad and this cheque was misused by the complainant. 9. The learned trial court on an appreciation of the evidences led in the complaint case has returned a finding that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. One of the grounds taken by the trial court to disbelieve the stand taken by the accused was that he has failed to examine Raj Kumar Prasad. The Appellate Court has again re-examined the entire evidence on record and finding that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is correct, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2011. 10. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the courts below have failed to apply the law on the subject in correct perspective, they have in fact not discussed the defence of the petitioner. 11. 10. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the courts below have failed to apply the law on the subject in correct perspective, they have in fact not discussed the defence of the petitioner. 11. In so far as the second plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it needs to be recorded that the trial court has discussed the defence evidence in detail, running from para 9 to para 14. Each and every detail of the document tendered in evidence by the petitioner and the evidence led through two defence witnesses have been discussed. 12. Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when a cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him is presented with the 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, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, the offence is complete. Once a cheque is issued there is a presumption under section 139 that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In “M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , on which the learned counsel has placed reliance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “30. Applying the said definitions of “proved” or “disproved” to the principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable 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.” 13. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is intended at ensuring that the commercial transactions are honoured by the parties. The proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-criminal in nature. No doubt, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence, but then the defence sought to be put forth by the accused must be substantial and not just pretention of the accused. The stand taken by the petitioner, that to put pressure on him after he instituted Insolvency Case No. 02 of 2008 the complainant has filed the complaint case, must fail. There can be no such assumption in law. Unless the petitioner leads evidence establishing the facts corroborating his stand that the complainant has misused the cheque in question, he fails to discharge the initial onus on him. On misuse of the cheques by the complainant, in my opinion, both the courts have rightly observed that once Raj Kumar Prasad to whom the accused claims that one of the cheques was issued was not examined by him, the petitioner cannot be said to have established that the cheque was, in fact, issued to the said Raj Kumar Prasad and misused by the complainant. 14. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove finding no merits in this petition, Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2013 is dismissed.