JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - This revision arises from the judgment dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh Rourkela in I.C.C. No.461 of 2007 (Tr. No.5953/09). 2. The opposite party No.2 lodged a complaint in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela arranging the petitioner as an accused for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, hereinafter called as 'the NI Act). Having faced the trial, he has been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo Decided on 07th March, 2019. simple imprisonment for a period of two years with payment of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the opposite party No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused, though had filed the above noted appeal, the same has not yielded any fruitful result in his favour. Hence, the revision. 3. The case of the complainant (opposite party No.2) is that on 27.1.2006, the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him to meet his urgent need as regards the education of his children with an assurance of its return within a short time. It is further stated that though on 23.8.2006, the petitioner again took a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-promising to return the total amount within a period of next six months, the accused did not pay the amount in time and also thereafter when the complainant demanded the repayment. It is stated that on 25.6.2007, the accused issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant for discharge of said debt in clearing his liability. The cheques, being presented on that very day with the Bank for collection, those bounced back being dishonoured for insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused. 4. The complainant then sent a demand notice by registered post with AD which did not return. Having waited for quite some time thereafter, finding no such response from the accused, he lodged the complaint. 4. The complainant then sent a demand notice by registered post with AD which did not return. Having waited for quite some time thereafter, finding no such response from the accused, he lodged the complaint. The trial court, on analysis of evidence on record and upon consideration of the defence taken by the accused that three blank cheques having been issued by him as security, those have been utilized by making the inflated demand in charging the interest and without taking into account the cash payment of Rs. 75,000/-I as not believable, has found the accused to have committed the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, he has been sentenced and directed to pay compensation, as aforesaid. 5. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party. The judgment of the courts below have been perused. 6. The very first ground on which the judgment is attacked is that of non-compliance of the provision of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the NI Act as to service of notices upon the accused demanding the payment of the money covered under the cheques within a period of fifteen days of its receipt. The copy of the demand notices have been proved as Ext.9 and 10. Those having been sent by registered post with AD, the postal registration receipts have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.11 and 12. The address given by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 stands the same as has been indicated in the demand notices as also the postal receipts. The complainant having proved to have dispatched said demand notices by registered post and having stated on oath to have not received back the AD or the unserved envelope, the lower appellate court appears to have very rightly presumed its receipt by the accused drawing the presumption simple imprisonment for a period of two years with payment of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the opposite party No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused, though had filed the above noted appeal, the same has not yielded any fruitful result in his favour. Hence, the revision. 2. 7. The case of the complainant (opposite party No.2) is that on 27.1.2006, the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the opposite party No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused, though had filed the above noted appeal, the same has not yielded any fruitful result in his favour. Hence, the revision. 2. 7. The case of the complainant (opposite party No.2) is that on 27.1.2006, the accused had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him to meet his urgent need as regards the education of his children with an assurance of its return within a short time. It is further stated that though on 23.8.2006, the petitioner again took a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- promising to return the total amount within a period of next six months, the accused 1 did not pay the amount in time and also thereafter when the complainant demanded the repayment. It is stated that on 25.6.2007, the accused issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant for discharge of said debt in clearing his liability. 8. The cheques, being presented on that very day with the Bank for collection, those bounced back being dishonoured for insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused. The complainant then sent a demand notice by registered post with AD which did not return. Having waited for quite some time thereafter, finding no such response from the accused, he lodged the complaint The trial court, on analysis of evidence on record and upon consideration of the defence taken by the accused that three blank cheques having been issued by him as security, those have been utilized by making the inflated demand in charging the interest and without taking into account the cash payment of Rs. 75,000/-I as not believable, has found the accused to have committed the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. 9. Accordingly, he has been sentenced and directed to pay compensation, as aforesaid. 3. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party The judgment of the courts below have been perused. 4. 9. Accordingly, he has been sentenced and directed to pay compensation, as aforesaid. 3. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party The judgment of the courts below have been perused. 4. The very first ground on which the judgment is attacked is that of non-compliance of the provision of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the NI Act as to service of notices upon the accused demanding the payment of the money covered under the cheques within a period of fifteen days of its receipt. The copy of the demand notices have been proved as Ext.9 and 10. 10. Those having been sent by registered post with AD, the postal registration receipts have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.11 and 12. The address given by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 stands the same as has been indicated in the demand notices as also the postal receipts. The complainant having proved to have dispatched said demand notices by registered post and having stated on oath to have not received back the AD or the un-served envelope, the lower appellate court appears to have very rightly presumed its receipt by the accused drawing the presumption as available under section 27 of the General Clauses Act finding no such evidence from the side of the accused to rebut the presumption, in view of the above, this Court finds no such illegality or impropriety in the finding of the courts below as to the service of demand notice upon the accused as mandated under Clause (b) to the proviso to section 138 of the NI Act giving rise the cause of action for lodging the complaint in holding it to be in order. 11. The other ground that the courts below have overlooked the important facts so as to disbelieve the case of the complainant as regards the issuance of two cheques by the accused for the amount as stated I therein to the complainant. In that context, it is said that since both the cheques do not carry consecutive numbers though those are said to have been issued on the same day by the accused that should have been held sufficient to discard the case of the complainant. When the two cheques, Ext. In that context, it is said that since both the cheques do not carry consecutive numbers though those are said to have been issued on the same day by the accused that should have been held sufficient to discard the case of the complainant. When the two cheques, Ext. 3 and 4 have come to the hands of the complainant containing the signature of the accused and he has become the holder of the cheques in due course, which he has precisely deposed during his examination in court, the two cheques being not having the consecutive number, in my considered view is not a circumstance to the disbelieve the version of the complainant altogether. In the event, he was to take advantage of that, it was incumbent upon him to lead evidence in the light of his defence for appreciation of the court which has not been done in the present case. The above two grounds, being projected in the revision petition, are thus found to be holding no water. 12. In the wake of aforesaid, the findings of guilt rendered by the courts below are not liable to be interfered with. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances when it is seen that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) since the mid of the year 2013 pursuant to the direction of this Court, the order of sentence and compensation appear to commensurate with the offence and rather on a higher side. 14. In that view of the matter, the order of sentence and compensation stands modified to the extent that the petitioner is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant. With the above modifications as to the order of sentence and compensation, the revision stands disposed of. 15. The registry is directed to make the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon to the complainant (opposite party No.2) when he makes an approach for the same subject to observance and fulfillment of the required formalities.