ORDER : In the complaint filed by the present respondent under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Cr.P.C.), read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `N.I.Act’), against the present petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the learned XVI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court’), by judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20.11.2008, passed in C.C.No.3216/2008, convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.962/2008, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Session Judge’s Court’), which also by its judgment dated 23.8.2010, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present Revision Petition. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that the present petitioner had availed a housing loan from the complainant-Bank for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs on 3.10.2006. In that regard, he had executed loan documents in favour of the complainant-Bank on the same day. The said loan amount was repayable in eighty-four equal monthly installments together with accrued interest thereupon. Towards the repayment of the arrears of the installments, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.111702, for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/, dated 12.11.2007, drawn on Corporation Bank, Pattanagere CMC Road, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant-Bank. When the complainant presented the said cheque for its realisation on 12.11.2007, the same came to be returned dishonoured with the Banker’s endorsement “insufficient funds” on 14.11.2007. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued on 20.11.2007 by the complainant calling upon the accused/petitioner to pay the cheque amount, to which, the accused did not reply. The same constrained the complainant to institute a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was tried for the alleged offence, wherein, on behalf of the complainant, one Ramaraju, an officer of the Bank, was examined as PW1 and documents at Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was tried for the alleged offence, wherein, on behalf of the complainant, one Ramaraju, an officer of the Bank, was examined as PW1 and documents at Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. From the accused side, the accused got himself examined as DW1 and got produced and marked documents at Exs.D1 and D2. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 20.11.2008, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly, which judgment is confirmed by the learned Session Judge’s Court. 5. Trial Court and Session Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing and also considering the fact that this Revision Petition was ten years old petition, this Court by its order dated 13.8.2020, appointed learned counsel Sri D.Nagaraja Reddy, as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. 7. Heard the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent neither present physically nor through Video Conference. As such, the respondent’s argument was taken as Nil. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 9. After hearing, the point that arise for my consideration is : “Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and the Session Judge’s Court suffers with any illegality or perversity warranting any interference at the hands of this Court?” 10. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner in his argument submits that the undisputed facts are that the petitioner/accused had availed a housing loan for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs from the complainant-Bank on 3.10.2006 and the same was repayable in eightyfour equal monthly installments together with accrued interest thereupon. He further submits that, it is also not in dispute that at the time of availment of loan itself, the complainant-Bank collected twentyfour duly signed blank cheques from the accused. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that, however, the petitioner disputes that, as on the date of presentation of cheque, there was any outstanding liability to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/payable by the accused to the complainant. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that, however, the petitioner disputes that, as on the date of presentation of cheque, there was any outstanding liability to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/payable by the accused to the complainant. He also submits that the cheques were issued as security purpose which was misused by the complainant-Bank and this aspect has not been considered by both the trial Court, as well as the session Judge’s Court. 11. In view of the fact that this is a Revision Petition preferred by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 138 of N.I.Act and also in view of the fact that the availment of the loan by the accused to a sum of Rs.24 lakhs from the complainant-Bank on 3.10.2006 and the liability of the accused to repay the same in eightyfour equal monthly installments together with accrued interest thereupon is not in dispute, the said aspect need not have to be reanalysed again. Similarly, the fact that cheque at Ex.P2 was issued by the accused to the complainant-Bank and the same came to be dishonoured when presented for its realisation as could be seen from Banker’s endorsement as per Exs.P3 and P4 also establishes the fact that the dishonour of the cheque is for the reason of “insufficiency of funds”. Ex.P5 shows the service of legal notice by the complainant-Bank to the accused demanding the cheque amount which was dishonoured and Ex.P6 is the postal receipt in that regard. The evidence of PW1 on these aspects since have remained undisputed, the fact of the accused availing the housing loan and issuance of cheque as per Ex.P2 by him and its dishonour for the reason of insufficiency of funds and service of legal notice upon him demanding the cheque amount, are all remains proven facts. Thus, the only point of dispute as raised by the petitioner is the alleged misuse of the cheque which is said to have been given as a security to the loan amount and the alleged nonexistence of the loan amount equivalent to the cheque amount as on the date of issuance of the cheque. On the said point, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the admission by PW1 in his cross-examination that at the time of granting loan, twentyfour blank cheques were collected itself would go to show that the cheques were issued as security purpose. On the said point, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the admission by PW1 in his cross-examination that at the time of granting loan, twentyfour blank cheques were collected itself would go to show that the cheques were issued as security purpose. He further submits that the admission by PW1 that the accused had paid eight installments at the rate of Rs.21,600/per installment would also go to show that there was no due of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/payable by the accused. 12. A perusal of the evidence of PW1, as well that of the accused, who was examined as DW1, would clearly go to show that the loan transaction as alleged by the complainant and issuance of cheques by the accused to the complainant, including the one at Ex.P2, have proven to be admitted facts. Though PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted a suggestion as true that at the time of availing the loan, the accused had issued twentyfour duly signed blank cheques, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that the cheques were collected by the complainant-Bank only as a security to the loan account. There is no whisper in the entire evidence of PW1, so also, in the evidence of DW1 that they were issued only for security purpose. Had really cheques were given by the accused to the complainant-Bank as a security, then definitely the accused would have made a suggestion to that effect in the cross-examination of PW1, which he has not done. On the contrary, the accused himself has suggested to PW1 that in case of any default in payment of the installments, the Banker was at liberty to present the cheque for realisation. Thus, it is very clear that the cheques were not issued only as a security purpose. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that as on the date of presentation of the cheque, the accused was in due of some amount to the complainant. That being the case, the contention that the accused had issued the cheques only as a security, that too, for the first time in this proceedings, would not enure to his benefit. 13. That being the case, the contention that the accused had issued the cheques only as a security, that too, for the first time in this proceedings, would not enure to his benefit. 13. Though the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner also contended that there was no outstanding liability equivalent to the cheque amount as on the date of presentation of the cheque, but, no corroborative evidence or material has been placed by him in that regard. Interestingly, no such suggestion was made even to PW1 in his cross-examination. Though learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner submits that PW1 has admitted that eight installments were paid, but, the witness was very clear in his answer stating that, in total, the accused had paid eight installments. By that itself, it cannot be inferred that as on the date of presentation of cheque, there was no outstanding equivalent to that of the cheque amount. The accused should have elicited some more details had he really paid those installments earlier to the issuance of cheque at Ex.P2. Even PW1 has also not stated that those installments were paid prior to the presentation of the cheque at Ex.P2. Therefore, when the accused has taken a specific defence, it was for him to substantiate his defence and establish the same through cogent evidence. On the other hand, by the issuance of cheque with a particular amount quantified therein in favour of the payee/complainant raises to a presumption in his favour that as on the date of the issuance of the cheque, the amount mentioned therein was the outstanding liability payable by the drawer to the payee. Therefore, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable. 14. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to another legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused at Ex.D1 submits that there is one more legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `SARFAESI Act’), as such also, the complainant cannot demand the repayment of the cheque amount. Except making the said submission, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner does not able to substantiate his contention that a mere issuance of the notice mentioning the SARFAESI Act in it precludes the complainant-Bank from continuing in a proceeding initiated for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 15. Admittedly, the notice at Ex.P5 and the notice at Ex.D1 are two different notices with different demands. Their nature, contents and the demand made therein are also different. Admittedly, the notice at Ex.D1 is a subsequent notice and there are no material to show that subsequent to the issuance of the said notice, any development has taken place depriving the complainant to proceed further in his complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In the said scenario, the trial Court has rightly held that Ex.D1 would not enure to the benefit of the accused. 16. Barring the above, the petitioner has not put forward any other grounds worth considering. The above analysis clearly goes to show that the accused has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Since both the trial Court, as well the Session Judge’s Court after appreciating the materials placed before them properly have rightly held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the said order warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Since the sentence ordered is also proportionate to the gravity of the guilt committed by the accused, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with trial Court and Session Judge’s Court records to the concerned Courts without delay. The Court while acknowledging the service rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner Sri D.Nagaraja Reddy, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs.3,000/- to him payable by the Registry.