ORDER : 1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the J.M.F.C-III Court, Davanagere in C.C.No.967/2014 against the petitioner and confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Crl.A.No.35/2015. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,45,000/-was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/-was ordered to be remitted to the State. 3. Petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court. 4. Complainant presented the cheque -Ex.P1 dated 15.05.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Chickmagaluru Branch for Rs.2,25,000/-through his account in Bank of Baroda, Davanagere Branch. The said cheque was dishonoured as per the memo-Ex.P2 dated 03.08.2006 with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. 5. The complainant got issued notice -Ex.P7 dated 19.08.2006 to the accused alleging that she has borrowed Rs.2,25,000/-in December 2005 for her personal use agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month and failed to repay the same. In the notice, the complainant further alleged that towards discharge of the said loan, accused issued the cheque -Ex.P1 without arranging the funds for honouring the said cheque, therefore, that was dishonoured. Therefore, he called upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. 6. According to the complainant, the notice was served on the accused under acknowledgment -Ex.P6 and she failed to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant filed complaint against the accused before the trial Court to prosecute her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. The trial Court, on taking cognizance, tried the accused. The trial Court, initially by the order dated 18.08.2010, convicted the accused and sentenced her. 8. The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.117/2010 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere which came to be dismissed on 02.11.2010. The accused challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1561/2010. The trial Court, initially by the order dated 18.08.2010, convicted the accused and sentenced her. 8. The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.117/2010 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere which came to be dismissed on 02.11.2010. The accused challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1561/2010. This Court, vide order dated 18.02.2014, set aside the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the trial Court declined to accept the evidence adduced by the accused by way of affidavit. 9. Further this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1561/2010 remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to record the defence evidence and dispose of the matter afresh. Accordingly, the trial Court recorded the further evidence of DW.1/accused. Again after hearing both the parties, the trial Court by the impugned order, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and the First Appellate Court confirmed the same. 10. The records show that the accused contested the case on the following grounds: (i). The loan transaction was denied. (ii) Cheque -Ex.P1 was issued to one Shamala Godi, the sister-in-law of the complainant towards chit fund subscription transaction and that was misused by the complainant to file the case. (iii). The notice -Ex.P7 was not served on the ] accused. (iv). The cheque was issued not for discharging any liability payable to the complainant. 11. Both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that since the accused admitted her signature on the cheque and that the cheque pertain to her account, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued towards discharge of liability arises and the accused has failed to rebut the said presumption. 12. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court further held that the notice -Ex.P7 was issued to the address of the accused and the acknowledgment -Ex.P6 bears her signature. Therefore, the contention that the notice was not served was unacceptable. If the cheque and acknowledgment -Ex.P6 were manipulated, in the ordinary course the accused should have initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant which was not done that shows the hollowness of the defence of the accused. 13. Therefore, the contention that the notice was not served was unacceptable. If the cheque and acknowledgment -Ex.P6 were manipulated, in the ordinary course the accused should have initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant which was not done that shows the hollowness of the defence of the accused. 13. Sri.R.V.Shivananda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Ex.R1 -the naming ceremony invitation card shows that the naming ceremony was held on 11.05.2005 but the complainant claims to have lent the loan in December 2005 for the purpose of naming ceremony that itself shows that the case of the complainant is false. He further submits that the complainant/PW.1 in his evidence admitted that the signature on Ex.P6 differs from that of the accused. Therefore, the Courts below were error in holding that Ex.P1 was issued towards discharge of legal liability and notice -Ex.P7 was served on the accused. 14. This being revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the concurrent findings of the trial Court on facts, the scope of interference is very limited. Unless it is shown that the orders of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer perversity or glaring illegality, this Court cannot interfere in the orders of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 15. In the cross-examination of PW.1 as well as in her own evidence the accused admitted that Ex.P1 -cheque belongs to her account and the signature on the same. But her only defence was that she had issued the said cheque about eight years back to one Shamala Godi the sister-in-law of the complainant towards some chit fund subscription and the complainant has misused the same to file the complaint. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by both the Courts, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued towards discharge of liability of the accused arises. Then the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption. 16. To rebut such presumption, except for the self serving testimony of the accused that the cheque was not issued in favour of the complainant, no other evidence was adduced. 17. The accused admitted that she resided at the address shown in Ex.R1 her own document and the same address was shown in Ex.P6 -the postal acknowledgment. 16. To rebut such presumption, except for the self serving testimony of the accused that the cheque was not issued in favour of the complainant, no other evidence was adduced. 17. The accused admitted that she resided at the address shown in Ex.R1 her own document and the same address was shown in Ex.P6 -the postal acknowledgment. Therefore, the contention that she was not residing in the said address was rightly rejected by the Courts below. 18. Though, PW.1 in his cross-examination said that the signature of the accused on Ex.P6 differs a little from her other signatures, he explained that, saying that the accused might have made those variations. Therefore, the Courts rightly imputed the knowledge of the contents of Ex.P7 – the legal notice to the accused. 19. As rightly held by both the Courts, if the cheque was misused to the detriment of the accused with such huge financial implications, no man of ordinary prudence sits back without initiating any action against the complainant or the said Shamala Godi which was not done by the accused. This circumstance also weighed with the Courts below. 20. Further, as admitted by the accused herself, she was involved in similar cheque bounce case as was evident by Ex.P-9 -the joint memo filed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2013 on the file of the II Additional J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur. 21. These records show that accused was involved in the similar case on the allegation of borrowing loan from one Annapoorna issuing cheque and the cheque was dishonoured. Ex.P9 the joint memo shows that the accused settled the said matter for Rs.1,00,000/-ultimately. Ex.P10 was the certified copy of the application filed by Annapoorna in Crl.Misc.No.93/2013 for recovery of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-in pursuance of the order passed in C.C.No.1630/2007 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Others1 has held that the moment the accused admits the cheque and his signature on the AIR 2020 SC 945 cheque, the presumption arises that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and it was for the accused to rebut such presumption. In this case also the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted by adducing acceptable evidence. 23. In this case also the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted by adducing acceptable evidence. 23. On sound appreciation of evidence and legal position, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and that was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. This Court finds no ground to admit the petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The fine amount deposited if any shall be transmitted to the trial Court.