ORDER : The revision petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2012 passed in CC No.651 of 2010 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, (for short ‘the Trial Court’), which was confirmed vide judgment dated 07.02.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.2 of 2013 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) and the petitioner herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000/-and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein as complainant contended that he had paid hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/-to the accused during the last week of January, 2010 and towards repayment of the said loan amount, the accused has issued Ex.P1 – cheque on 22.03.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant through his banker, but the cheque was dishonored as there was ‘insufficient funds’. The same was communicated to the complainant vide memorandum dated 26.04.2020 which is as per Ex.P3. The legal notice was issued to the accused informing him regarding the dishonor of the cheque and called upon him to repay the cheque amount. The said notice sent through RPAD was returned as the addressee was absent. Since the accused has not repaid the cheque amount, the complainant presented the complaint before the Trial Court alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in support of his contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. , but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in support of his contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. , but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and the accused has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and proceeded to convict him as stated above. The accused has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by preferring Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2013 before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.02.2015. 4. Heard Sri.P.B.Umesh, learned Counsel appearing for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, for the revision petitioner and Sri.R.M.Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Trial Court should not have taken cognizance of the matter since there was delay in issuing legal notice. Firstly, he contended that even though the dishonor of cheque was intimated to the complainant vide endorsement dated 25.03.2010 as per Ex.P2, the legal notice was issued on 10.05.2010 which is beyond the period of limitation. Secondly, he contended that the legal notice was never served on the accused. Thirdly, he contended that complainant has not proved his financial capacity to lend the amount. Therefore, on all these counts, the learned Counsel prays to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court submitted that, the fact of dishonor of cheque was intimated to the complainant only on 26.04.2010 vide Ex.P3. Therefore, within the statutory period of 30 days, legal notice was issued on 10.05.2010. He also submitted that the accused has never disputed the knowledge about the issuance of legal notice and therefore, at this stage, he cannot raise objection regarding service of notice. Therefore, within the statutory period of 30 days, legal notice was issued on 10.05.2010. He also submitted that the accused has never disputed the knowledge about the issuance of legal notice and therefore, at this stage, he cannot raise objection regarding service of notice. Learned Counsel also submitted that there is no serious dispute regarding availing of hand loan and about financial capacity of the complainant. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused and there is no merit in the revision. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Even though, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the financial capacity of the complainant and the lending of the amount is not proved, I do not find any such contention raised before the Trial Court. When the complainant was in the witness box as PW1, learned Counsel representing the accused cross examined him and there are only few suggestions put to the witness regarding lending of the amount. Apart from that, nothing has been elicited from PW1 to contend that he was not having financial capacity or to deny availing of hand loan. 8. Moreover, my attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the respondent to para No.17 of the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, where there is a reference to the part payment of an amount of Rs.49,000/-made by the accused to the complainant. These facts and circumstances go to show that the accused was not serious in disputing the availing of hand loan or financial capacity of the complainant. Further, I do not find any defence taken by the accused regarding the cheque Ex.P1 and it is admitted that the same was issued by the accused. Under such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. 9. Regarding issuance of legal notice, even though, it is contended that the same was not served on the accused and that from the date of communication, legal notice issued was beyond the period of limitation, Ex.P3 is the endorsement issued by the collecting banker which is dated 26.04.2010, whereas Ex.P2 endorsement is by the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. Therefore, it is clear that it was only on 26.04.2020, the complainant was intimated about the dishonor of cheque. Therefore, it is clear that it was only on 26.04.2020, the complainant was intimated about the dishonor of cheque. On that count, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. 10. Further, even though legal notice issued through RPAD was returned unserved as the accused was absent, the accused has never taken any defence before the Trial Court that he was not aware of the contents of the legal notice, on the other hand, the tenor of cross examination of PW1 goes to show that he was aware about the issuance of legal notice by the complainant. Further, from the records, it could be made out that the notice addressed to the accused was also sent through Certificate of Posting and it is the contention of the complainant that the same is served on the accused. Since the accused has not taken any defence before the Trial Court regarding non service of notice to him, at this stage, such contention cannot be permitted to be raised. 11. Even though, the complainant contends that Ex.P1 -cheque issued by the accused was in discharge of legally enforceable debt, no specific defence is raised by the accused, except the bald denial. Therefore, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act comes into operation and accused has not chosen to rebut the same either during cross examination of PW1 of by stepping into the witness box or by producing any material. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the accused/revision petitioner and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.