ORDER : 1. The petitioner was the accused in the Court of learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court) in C.C. No.1465/2006 who was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’). 2. Summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that on 10.10.2005, the accused in order to purchase some land availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant. Towards the repayment of the said loan amount he issued a cheque bearing No.46900 dated 15.02.2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, drawn on Chikmagalur Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamita, Chikmagalur, in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented for its realisation by the complainant through her banker returned with the banker’s endorsement as “ not arranged for ”. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused did not pay the cheque amount which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held wherein the complainant got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P5. The accused got himself examined as D.W.1 and also examined one Sri Siddegowda as D.W.2 but did not produce any documentary evidence on his behalf. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments from both side and considering the material on record, by its impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned I Addl. Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’s Court’) in Crl.A. No.334/2013. Learned Sessions Judge, by Judgment dated 17.11.2015 while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 4. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Respondent is being represented by her learned counsel. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 4. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. Perused the materials placed on record. 5. Respondent is being represented by her learned counsel. 6. Heard submissions from both side learned counsels. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is, “whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Session Judge’s Court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in their proper perspective. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that issuance of cheque as per Ex.P1 and its dishonour as per Ex.P2, issuance of notice as per Ex.P3 are not in dispute, hence the presumption about the existence of legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant has been formed. He further submitted that the accused failed to rebut the said presumption, as such, the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court have rightly held him guilty of the alleged offence. 9. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. It is also not in dispute that cheque at Ex.P1 is drawn by the accused and the same came to be returned unpaid when presented for its realisation by the complainant with the banker’s endorsement as per Ex.P2 which shows the reason as “ not arranged for”. It is also not in dispute that after dishonour of the cheque, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P3 demanding the payment of the cheque amount. 10. The accused who got himself examined as D.W.1, in his cross examination has admitted that he received the notice issued to him by the complainant and also acknowledged his signature on the postal acknowledgement card which is at Ex.P4. Thus a presumption about the existence of a legally enforceable debt forms in favour of the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. Thus a presumption about the existence of a legally enforceable debt forms in favour of the complainant. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. In order to rebut the presumption formed in favour of the complainant, the accused in the cross examination of P.W.1 as well by himself examining as D.W.1 and also examining one Sri Siddegowda as D.W.2 has taken a contention in the form of defence that at the time of purchasing the timbers of mango tree from the complainant, he had issued the cheque in question as a security. However, the sale transaction could not materialise. But the complainant failed to return the said cheque in spite of oral request made to her. The suggestions made to P.W.1 in her cross examination on these lines were not admitted as true by the said witness. Similarly, the statement made by the accused as D.W.1 reiterating the same defence was denied in the cross examination of the said witness. Therefore, it was upon the accused to make out a case at least by preponderance of probabilities in his favour to rebut the presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant. 11. In his further attempt to rebut the presumption formed in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the accused also got examined one Sri Siddegowda as D.W.2 who admittedly is a common person known to both the complainant and the accused. Said D.W.2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that complainant had given some timbers of mango tree to the accused under a sale. At that time, the accused had given a cheque to the complainant. Except the said transaction, there was no other transaction between the complainant and the accused. 12. The evidence of D.W.2 when analysed in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 it can be noticed that the complainant as P.W.1 in her cross examination has specifically stated that one week prior to the date of loan, the accused along with Sri Siddegowda (D.W.2) had approached her for a loan. However, on the date of giving the loan to the accused, it was the accused alone who had gone to her (complainant) and taken the loan amount. The said statement of P.W.1 has remained undenied. However, on the date of giving the loan to the accused, it was the accused alone who had gone to her (complainant) and taken the loan amount. The said statement of P.W.1 has remained undenied. That makes it clear that on the date of receiving the loan amount in cash by the accused from the complainant, D.W.2 had not accompanied the accused. As such, D.W.2 was not aware of the said transaction. It is for said reason he must have stated in his examination-in-chief that except the transaction related to timbers no other transaction had taken place between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, the said evidence of D.W.2 would not strengthen the defence of the accused. On the other hand, as observed above, the accused has admitted that the cheque at Ex.P1 was drawn by him and same came to be dishonoured when presented for its realisation by the complainant in which regard the complainant had also issued a notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount. The said evidence of P.W.1 could not be shaken by the accused though he has cross examined P.W.1 and led evidence from his side, as such, the presumption formed in favour of the complainant crystalises. 13. It is after due analysis of the evidence since the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offence and passed the Order on sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt and the same was confirmed by Sessions Judge’s Court, I do not find any illegality or perversity in it warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Registry to transmit copies of this order along with Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court records to the concerned Courts, forthwith.