ORDER : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Learned counsel Sri.E.Veeresha for petitioner 3. Petition is directed against the Judgment passed by the learned LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal appeal No.1175/2014 on 06.06.2015 wherein the Judgment dated 27.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.32256/2011 by the XIII ACMM, Bengaluru, came to be confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks and status as addressed in the trial court. 5. The substance of the complaint is that the accused approached the complainant during first week of June, 2010 and requested financial accommodation of Rs.5,00,000/. Considering the request of the accused the complainant accommodated and paid Rs.5,00,000/to the accused. The accused promised to repay the said amount within four months. But after the said period when the complainant demanded the amount the accused issued an account payee cheque bearing No.919469 dated 02.10.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited in favour of the complainant. 6. When the complainant presented the said cheque it came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as “funds insufficient” on 14.10.2010. Thereafter complainant got issued a legal notice dated 23.10.2010 through RPAD and also through certificate of posting which were duly received by the accused. But there was no payment of amount due by the accused and complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and following documents were exhibited on his behalf are Exhibits P1Cheque, P2Bank Endorsement, P3Copy of the Legal Notice, P4RPAD Postal acknowledgement and P5Complaint. Insofar as accused is concerned he was examined as DW1 and following are the documents – Ex.D1 and D2UCP Receipts. 8. Learned trial Judge allowed the complaint on 27.09.2014 and directed the accused to pay the amount of Rs.5,05,000/and in default of such payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further ordered that in case of depositing of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation. 9. 8. Learned trial Judge allowed the complaint on 27.09.2014 and directed the accused to pay the amount of Rs.5,05,000/and in default of such payment to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further ordered that in case of depositing of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation. 9. The accused being aggrieved of the said order preferred appeal before the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal appeal No.1175/2014 that came to be dismissed on 06.06.2015 thereby the Judgment of the trial court was confirmed. Now the revision petition is preferred by the accused. 10. Learned counsel for accused Sri.E.Veeresha submits that there is no receipt of consideration of Rs.5,00,000/by the accused nor there was any transaction between them. The complainant has abused and misused the cheque of the accused in order to make wrongful gains and to him. 11. Learned counsel would further submit that the complainant himself has admitted in his cross examination that he has transacted with a friend of the accused by name Ramachandra. However the admission does not appear to be specific and direct to mean thereby in accordance with the friend of the accused. Insofar as accused examined himself as DW1. It is specific case that during 2007 his friend had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/from the complainant and at that time accused issued a cheque as security for repayment and it was that cheque that is being misused by the complainant to present the case. Learned counsel for accused would further submit accused does not owe any amount to the complainant and later cannot take advantage of the presumption. 12. Learned counsel for complainant Sri.S.Muniraju would submit that entire aspect including issuance of cheque is admitted and denials are made as an after and Sri.S.Muniraju, learned counsel for respondent are present. thought. However learned counsel submits that issuance of cheque for Rs.5,00,000/is not admitted. 13. In the overall circumstances of the case the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as under: “Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. thought. However learned counsel submits that issuance of cheque for Rs.5,00,000/is not admitted. 13. In the overall circumstances of the case the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as under: “Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:— (a) of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date —that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; (c) as to time of acceptance —that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity; (d) as to time of transfer —that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity; (e) as to order of indorsements —that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon; (f) as to stamps —that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped; (g) that holder is a holder in due course — that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him. Section 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Section 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a 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, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 19 [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and] 14. The presumption is available in favour of the complainant when he discharged the initial burden and thereafter whether as a holder in due course or regarding payment of consideration in good faith will be the presumption that are available to the complainant no doubt they are rebuttable. As such accused has occasion to rebut against the presumptive value of the complainant. Apart from admission and denials pleading a specific plea or special plea also has to be taken into consideration. 15. As such accused has occasion to rebut against the presumptive value of the complainant. Apart from admission and denials pleading a specific plea or special plea also has to be taken into consideration. 15. In the present case the defence of the accused is two fold. At first stage he contends that his friend had borrowed amount of Rs.1,25,000/and the cheque was collected as a security as complainant insisted for issuance of cheque from the account of accused. As such there is no liability on the accused. The name of the said friend of the accused is stated to be Ramachandra. Special plea taken by the accused either regarding standing as surety or as a security issuing cheque for Ramachandra who is friend of accused for borrowing of Rs.1,25,000/from the complainant should have been established so that apart from denials whenever a specific and special plea is taken by a defendant or accused it is incumbent on him to establish plea asserted by him. Neither Ramachandra is examined nor circumstances favouring the accused in connection with either the plea regarding Ramachandra or borrowing of Rs.1,25,000/are established. Under circumstances the case of accused cannot be callous or lacking responsibility. 16. The petitioner-accused is not confident of his particular defence and hence he comes up with next defence as alternative. However fails to establish both. 17. Thus, I am of the sincere but firm finding there exists no circumstances for continuing further proceedings in the case since it is posted for admission. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the Judgment passed by either trial court or appellate court. Petition is devoid of merits for being admitted. I proceed to pass following: ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is rejected. Judgment and order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the trial court in C.C.No.32256/2011 is confirmed.