JUDGMENT N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference. Heard learned counsel Sri. Sanjay Nair for petitioner who has appeared before the court. Learned counsel Sri. K.A.Ariga for respondent absent. 2. This Criminal Revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.14619/2008 and also the judgment and order dated 30.5.2015 passed by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.1300/2014 and consequently allow the said appeal. 3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to in accordance with their status and rankings as held by them before the trial court. 4. The case in brief of the complainant is that, "2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 16.4.2007 for the purpose of settle with the workers and promised to pay the same on 21.2.2008, accordingly, accused had issued 2 cheques for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, dated 21.2.2008 bearing No.348036 and 348037 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vijayanagar branch, Bangalore to discharge the said legal liability. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Jayanagar branch, Bangalore, but the same was came to be dishonoured with a shara, 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to the accused through registered post on 13.3.2008, the same was served upon the accused, inspite of it, accused neither reply the said notice nor paid the cheque amount and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, this complaint." 5. The trial court took cognizance of the offence, after recording sworn statement of the complainant, criminal case has been registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, issued summons to the accused. Accused entered appearance and resisted the claim of the complainant. Thereafter plea of the accused was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. 6. During the trial, complainant got himself examined as PW1, got examined one witness as PW2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Thereafter, 313 statement of the accused was recorded. Accused entered appearance and resisted the claim of the complainant. Thereafter plea of the accused was recorded, accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. 6. During the trial, complainant got himself examined as PW1, got examined one witness as PW2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Thereafter, 313 statement of the accused was recorded. The accused got examined himself as DW1, got examined one witness as DW2 and got produced 19 documents as Ex.D1 to 19. 7. After hearing the parties, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months. Out of fine amount if deposited complainant is entitled for Rs.2.00,000/- as compensation and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be appropriate to state exchequer. 8. Accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.1300/2014 before the appellate court against the judgment of the trial court. The appellate Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 30-05-2015 and thereby confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.14619/2008 on 27-10-2014. The same is challenged by the accused in this revision petition. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there has been a high collusion between the complainant and one Bharath Kumar Shetty. The said Bharath Kumar Shetty is a principal employee of the accused. Earlier complainant was running a concern and accused was offered to take over the same for consideration. However, finally the matter could not materialized. 10. The cheques used by the complainant are nothing but those which were handedover to Bharath Kumar shetty, rather they were stolen and mis appropriated by the complainant with the connivance of Bharath Kumar Shetty. In other words, Bharath Kumar Shetty has helped the complainant to make mis use of the cheque. The cheque amount originally it was adjusted to disburse the compensation to the workers. However, the said cheque was mis used by the complainant. Thus, it is a clash between the claim and contention, wherein the complainant claims the accused handed over the cheque in discharge of a legally recoverable debt of Rs.2.00 lakh that came to be dis-honoured on presentation for encashment. There has been several contentions by the accused in support of his case. Thus, it is a clash between the claim and contention, wherein the complainant claims the accused handed over the cheque in discharge of a legally recoverable debt of Rs.2.00 lakh that came to be dis-honoured on presentation for encashment. There has been several contentions by the accused in support of his case. It is claimed that there is no settled presumption or law in favour of the complainant regarding the consideration as passing of the same is disputed. Mere presence of signature on the cheque does not amount to admission of execution of the cheque. It was further submitted that the complainant has admitted in his evidence that he paid money to the petitioner on 6.4.2007. But, Ex.P8 shows that the cheque was never issued in favour of the complainant. As stated above, the cheque was issued for settlement of compensation payable to the workers due to stoppage of work of company Canara Poly Pack Pvt. Limited. The complainant claim that he gave loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the accused. But Ex.P8 is admitted by the complainant that goes contrary to his contention. It was also urged that the complainant has admitted that amount of Rs.2.00 was given to Bharath Kumar Shetty. The legally recoverable debt is absent. 11. The complainant has made a claim against accused for having issued the cheque for Rs.2.00 lakh without maintaining sufficient balance in the account. 12. The accused apart from denying of existence of the legally recoverable debt and issuance of the cheque by him to the complainant in discharge of the same stated in unequivocal terms that also contends that the cheques were mis used by complainant in active connivance with Bharath Kumar Shetty. 13. The stand of the accused that he kept the signed cheque pertaining to Canara Poly Pack Pvt. Limited and personal cheques in the above company and they were stolen by the complainant in collusion with Bharath Kumar Shetty who was maintaining the affairs of Canara Poly Pack Pvt. Limited and has obtained disputed cheques 2 and 3 from Bharath Kumar Shetty handed over the same to be used against the accused. 14. In the further circumstances of the case the trial court has observed that, the accused issued two cheques Ex.P2 and P3 each for Rs.1.00 lakh in the name of the complainant and agreed to settle the same within 90 days. 14. In the further circumstances of the case the trial court has observed that, the accused issued two cheques Ex.P2 and P3 each for Rs.1.00 lakh in the name of the complainant and agreed to settle the same within 90 days. The presumption under section 118 or 139 of N.I. Act is available to the complainant holder if the initial burden is discharged by drawer of the cheque. The said provisions read as under: "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. "139. Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, 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.]" 15. The prime document contended to be in support of the accused is Ex.P8 as submitted by learned counsel. 16. The denials alone refuting the allegations cannot absolve the duty to discharge the burden of proof. The prime document contended to be in support of the accused is Ex.P8 as submitted by learned counsel. 16. The denials alone refuting the allegations cannot absolve the duty to discharge the burden of proof. Apart from cross examination of complainant, the accused has got himself examined as DW1 and examined DW2 as his witness. DW2-Vijay Boolani is none other than the son of DW1 and it was not brought to the notice of the court. 17. Whenever special defence apart from denials shall have to be established by the accused, the same has to be proved and efforts are to be made to substantiate the same. In this connection neither Bharath Kumar Shetty nor the workers have been examined on behalf of accused. 18. The learned counsel for accused would submit that Bharah Kumar Shetty is hostile to the accused. Examining the witnesses in support of the case does not conclude that the witnesses would tell the version of the parties who has secured the witnesses. 19. In sofar as law relating to examination of the witnesses is concerned, there is chief examination, cross examination, hostile witnesses and circumstances in which cross examination is permitted of a witnesses examined. Further the worker in respect of whom the cheque was supposed to be written is neither mentioned nor examined. In the totality of the circumstances, the denials appears to be those which were made for the sake of denials without substance therein. 20. It is to be noted that if the suit cheque (disputed cheques) were in addition to five other cheques and it is contended that cheques were blank when issued, there was no impediment for the accused to write the name of the payee worker. If there is a misuse of these two cheques or other five cheques the onus has to be discharged by person who asserts it. In this case, it is none other than the accused. 21. In the entire context of the matter, I find there is no irregularity or illegality or lapse in the judgment passed by the trial court in CC No.14619/2008 and confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A. No.1300/2014 and the revision is devoid of merits for admitting the proceedings further. The petition fails at this stage itself. Accordingly, it is rejected.