JUDGMENT 1. Revision Petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.270/2013, dtd. 24/3/2015, confirming the judgment of Trial Court on the file of JMFC-V Court, Mangaluru in C.C.No.1849/2010, dtd. 22/7/2013 preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Parties to the Revision Petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. Heard the arguments of both sides. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of Trial Court Records with judgment of both the Courts below the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether the impugned judgment under revision petition which confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse capricious and legally not sustainable and call for any interference by this Court? 5. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it would go to show that complainant and accused are known to each other since several years. Accused demanded hand loan of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from the complainant on 11/1/2010 with an assurance to repay the same within short span of time. Accused in order to discharge legally enforceable debt issued the cheque bearing No.648977 for Rs.2, 00, 000.00 dtd. 10/8/2010 drawn on Amanath co-operative Bank Ltd. Mangaluru where the accused is maintaining the account. Complainant presented the said cheque for collection through her banker and the same was dishonoured for want of "sufficient fund" in the account of accused in view of Bank endorsement dtd. 11/8/2010 vide Ex.P.2 which was intimated to the complainant by bank vide letter dtd. 12/8/2010 Ex.P.3. Complainant issued demand notice through RPAD dtd. 13/8/2010 Ex.P.4 duly served to the accused vide acknowledgement card Ex.P.5. The demand notice sent to another address of accused returned as not claimed Ex.P.6 and the demand notice taken out from the returned RPAD marked as Ex.P.6(a). Accused on the date of accepting the hand loan dtd. 11/1/2010 executed receipt Ex.P.7. If the above referred documents are perused and appreciated with the oral testimony of PW.1 then it would go to show that complainant has complied all the necessary legal requirement in terms of Sec. 138 (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after for brevity referred to as "N.I.Act".) and complaint is filed within a period of one month the terms of Sec. 142 of N.I.Act. Complainant out of the above referred evidence on record has proved about issuance of cheque by accused for lawful discharge of debt, the said cheque on its presentation was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of accused, the demand notice issued by the complainant though served to accused has not replied to the demand notice. Therefore, under these circumstances when the complainant has complied necessary legal requirements in terms of Sec. 138 (a) to (c), then statutory presumption in terms of Ss. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act will have to be drawn. 6. In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer the judgment of Hon'blel Apex Court in APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 945 , wherein it has been observed and held that once the issuance and signature on cheque is admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of complainant that there exist legally enforceable debt or liability. Plea by accused that cheque was given by view of security and same has been misused by complainant is not tenable. 7. It also profitable to refer another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazer and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131, wherein it has been observed and held that:- "Once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and signature of accused on the cheque is not disputed, then in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act is statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case it is for the accused to prove the contrary." In view of the principles enunciated in the aforementioned two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that when once issuance of cheque with signature of accused on the account maintained by him is admitted or proved, then statutory presumption in terms of Ss. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act will have to be drawn. 8. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act will have to be drawn. 8. It is now up to the accused to prove by way of rebuttal evidence to displace the statutory presumption available in favour of complainant. In this context of the matter it would profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 Cr.R. page No. 639 (SC), wherein it has been observed and held that: "Presumption under Sec. 139 is rebuttable presumption and onus is on accused to raise probable defence. Standard of proof for rebutting presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. To rebut presumption, it is open for accused to rely on evidence laid by him or accused can also rely on materials submitted by complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from materials brought on record by parties, but also by reference to circumstances upon which they rely. It is not necessary for accused to come in witness box in support of his defence. Sec. 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a presumptive burden". 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest decision in Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in 2023 SCC online 1275, wherein it has been held that burden of placing rebuttal evidence to displace the statutory presumption available in favour of complainant is on accused. In view of the principles enunciated in both these judgments, it is evident that the accused to probabilise his defence can rely on his own evidence or also can rely on material submitted by complainant. It is not necessary for the accused to step into the witness box to probabilise his defence. In the present case, the accused apart from relying on the material produced by the complainant, also examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1. Whether the said material evidence placed on record by accused is sufficient to accept the same as rebuttal evidence to displace the statutory presumption available in favour of complainant or not has to be decided. 10. Accused himself examined as DW.1 and deposed to the effect that he is working as a press reporter for the last 16 years and complainant was running a chit fund business in Regal plaza, where his office is situated. 10. Accused himself examined as DW.1 and deposed to the effect that he is working as a press reporter for the last 16 years and complainant was running a chit fund business in Regal plaza, where his office is situated. He had taken Rs.25, 000.00 as hand loan from complainant, agreeing to pay interest at Rs.3, 750.00 per month and he has paid Rs.20, 000.00 once and Rs.4, 000.00 on another occasion, thus the accused has paid the entire amount taken from the complainant. Accused has never taken any hand loan of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from the complainant. DW.1 further deposed to the effect that he was called by ACP, Mangaluru and along with the complainant there were other two persons so also one Anwar of Manipadi against whom accused has reported in newspaper. It is at his instance ACP of Mangaluru under threat has taken three blank signed cheque brought by Mansur who is the brother of his wife. The complainant has misused the cheque given to ACP, Mangaluru and filed this false case. 11. In support of such contention got marked documents at Ex.D.1. On perusal of the same, it would go to show that complainant has filed another case against accused and the same is pending on the file of III JMFC Court. DW.1 further deposed to the Court that his signature was taken by force in the ACP office, Mangaluru on Ex.P.7. Accused has not produced any required document to substantiate his contention as referred above in his evidence. It is pertinent to note that accused is a press reporter and aware about all the consequences of signing on any document by force or under threat. If at all the cheque Ex.P.1 and the receipt Ex.P.7 was got executed from the accused in ACP office, Mangaluru under threat, then accused should have taken legal action against ACP, Mangaluru and Anwar of Manipadi, at whose instance he claimed to have issued three blank signed cheque. Accused also could have examined the brother of his wife Mansur who is said to have brought the cheque from the house and on which the signature of accused was obtained. Accused also could have examined the brother of his wife Mansur who is said to have brought the cheque from the house and on which the signature of accused was obtained. In action on the part of accused without taking any action either against complainant or against ACP, Mangaluru or Anwar of Manipadi and taking such defence for the first time during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and leading his evidence would create a serious doubt and it is nothing but an after thought contention taken by the accused. The pendency of another case between complainant and accused as per Ex.D.1 alone cannot be said as sufficient evidence to discredit the evidence of PW.1 and the above referred documents. Accused has admitted that he was taking loan from the complainant. No doubt he has taken a contention that he has taken loan of Rs.25, 000.00 and paid the entire amount. Accused has absolutely not produced any documents to substantiate the said fact. 12. Accused has executed the receipt Ex.P.7 for having taken loan of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from the complainant. The signature of accused on Ex.P.7 is not denied by accused. However, accused only claims that it was taken by force and under threat in the office of ACP, Mangaluru. The receipt Ex.P.7 is executed by accused on 11/1/2010, whereas the cheque Ex.P.1 is issued on 10/8/2010. If at all the signature of accused on Ex.P.7 was obtained under threat on 11/1/2010, then why he kept quite till the issuance of cheque dtd. 18/8/2010 for nearly about six months without taking any action against ACP, Mangaluru or Anwar of Manipadi. Therefore, the contention of the accused that his signature on Ex.P.7 was taken by force cannot be legally sustained. 13. Learned counsel for Revision Petitioner has vehemently argued that complainant has no source of income and she has not pleaded that she was having amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 saved by her and she has mobilised Rs.50, 000.00 from her relatives and thus paid an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. There is no any legal necessity to specifically plead as to how she mobilised the fund to pay the money to accused. If at all the accused has replied to the demand notice issued by the complainant dtd. There is no any legal necessity to specifically plead as to how she mobilised the fund to pay the money to accused. If at all the accused has replied to the demand notice issued by the complainant dtd. 13/8/2010 Ex.P.4 by questioning the source of income of complainant and how the payment was made, then in that event of the matter pleadings could have been found in the complaint. Complainant during the course of her evidence would have explained as to how she has mobilised the fund to pay the amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 to the accused. Accused even after his appearance before the Court, in response to the summons has not made any written communication by disclosing his defence as referred above to which the complainant was expected to give explanation during the course of her evidence. Above all the contention of accused that his signature was taken by force on receipt Ex.P.7 for having taken the loan from the complainant has been negated in view of the reasons recorded as above. Therefore, in view of the admitted signature of accused on the receipt Ex.P.7, the contention of learned counsel for Revision Petitioner that complainant has not pleaded that she was having savings amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 and mobilised Rs.50, 000.00 from her relatives cannot be legally sustained. 14. When once the issuance of cheque with signature of accused on the account maintained by him in the bank is proved by the complainant and the rebuttal evidence placed on record by the accused and the defence was held to be unsustainable then the statutory presumption available in favour of complainant in terms of Ss. 118 and 139 continues to operate. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the material evidence placed on record and the findings recorded in holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act was based on the material evidence on record. Therefore, the said findings recorded by both the Courts below does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Now coming to the question of imposition of sentence is concerned. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2, 05, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for six months. Therefore, the said findings recorded by both the Courts below does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Now coming to the question of imposition of sentence is concerned. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2, 05, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount Rs.2, 00, 000.00 was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and remaining Rs.5, 000.00 is ordered to be defrayed as prosecution expenses. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the imposition of sentence as ordered by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court also does not warrant any interference of this Court. Consequently proceed to pass the following: ORDER Revision Petition filed by Revision Petitioner is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits. Registry to send back the records to Trial Court with a copy of this order.