ORDER : This revision is filed by accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (‘trial Court’ for short) in CC No. 15213/2014 Dated 27.07.2016 whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused/revision petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short) and confirmed by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, (‘Sessions Judge/Court’ for short), in Criminal Appeal No.1013/2016 vide judgment dated 17.01.2019. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the ranks occupied by them before the trial Court. 3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant and accused are known to each other since several years; The husband of accused- Jeevitha Karthikeyan and the Proprietor of the complainant-Firm are family friends; During the year 2011, the accused and her husband have jointly purchased a house property at Kumaraswamy Layout and at that time, they sought financial assistance from the complainant to clear the house loan dues; As per their request, the complainant has paid Rs.6.00 Lakhs as hand-loan and the accused promised to pay the same within 18 months, but did not pay the same. When the complainant insisted for repayment, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.984871 dated 07.09.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Bannerghatta Road Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented, it was returned on the ground of Insufficient Funds. Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued to the accused, but the accused did not respond. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. she was also provided with prosecution papers and she denied the accusation. Then the complainant-Muniraju got examined himself as PW.1 and placed reliance on Eight documents as per Exs. P1 to P8. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the case of prosecution. Then the complainant-Muniraju got examined himself as PW.1 and placed reliance on Eight documents as per Exs. P1 to P8. After conclusion of evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the case of prosecution. The case of accused was of total denial. The accused herself was examined as DW.1 and one witness on her behalf was examined as DW.2. However, the accused did not choose to produce any documentary evidence in support of her contention. 5. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by imposing fine of Rs.8.00 Lakhs with default clause and further directed that Rs.7,95,000/- shall be paid by way of compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.1013/2016 and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrte. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for respondent/complainant. Perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that, both the Courts below have committed error in not appreciating the factual aspects and failed to note that there was no financial transaction between the complainant and the accused. He would also contend that, there is no explanation on the part of the complainant regarding Ex.P1 and his financial status is also not established. It is also contended that the defence set-up by the accused was not properly appreciated by both the Courts below and hence, he would contend that both the Courts below have committed error in convicting the accused and hence, he sought for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below by acquitting the petitioner/accused. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would support the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would support the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. He would contend that, the cheque is admitted and it belongs to account of accused, and it bears signature of the accused and therefore, there is presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. He would also contend that the accused has failed to rebut the said presumption and further, the petitioner/accused herself has taken inconsistent stands and the defence taken by the accused is not probable one and hence, he would contend that there is no material to entertain this revision petition and hence, sought for dismissal of this revision. 9. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:- “Whether the revision petitioner proves that both the Courts below have committed error by convicting the accused and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below are erroneous, arbitrary and capricious so as to call for any interference.” 10. According to the complainant, the accused has availed financial assistance of Rs.6.00 Lakhs from the complainant in order to clear house loan and in discharge of the said debt, the disputed cheque under Ex.P2 was issued. There is no dispute of the fact that the cheque belongs to the accused and it bears her signature. There is also no dispute of the fact that the cheque was presented and it was bounced. The contention of the accused is that, there was no transaction between herself and the complainant, and she is not liable to pay any debt. However, since the complainant is the holder of the cheque in due course, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the complainant and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent evidence. 11. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the complaint allegations. Though PW.1 was crossexamined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW.1 that, in order to clear the house loan, the husband of accused has availed the loan. 11. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and in his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the complaint allegations. Though PW.1 was crossexamined at length, nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW.1 that, in order to clear the house loan, the husband of accused has availed the loan. However, the complainant admitted this aspect, but states that both accused and her husband together have availed hand-loan from him. It is suggested that, Blank Cheque was given to the husband of Accused in order to clear the loan amount of the Bank and the same was taken forcibly and the said suggestion came to be denied. 12. During the course of arguments, all along it is contended that the relationship between the accused and her husband are strained and the husband of accused has colluded with the complainant and handed-over the cheque. But, DW.1 who was examined, has given a different version, wherein it is stated that she is handed over the cheques to her husband in order to submit it to the bank for repayment of the loan and the same was taken forcibly by one Babu, who was working in the complainant-Firm and by misusing it, the complaint came to be lodged. But, the said fact was not substantiated by the complainant except formal statement. No complaint was lodged in this regard. But, DW.2, who was examined on behalf of accused has given a different version, who claims to be an eye-witness for taking cheque forcibly from the pocket of husband of accused. In his examination-in-chief, he claims that the complainant himself forcibly took the cheque from the pocket of her husband, but DW.1 gives a statement saying that, one Babu has taken the cheque. There is no evidence as to who is Babu. The complainant has taken inconsistent stand in this regard. If at all she had issued cheque towards repayment of bank loan, she could have issued it to the concerned Bank towards repayment of loan and there was no need for her to issue a blank cheque as claimed by her. The accused is required to rebut the presumption on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and mere denial or putting suggestion does not amount to rebuttal of presumption. The defence of accused should be more probable. But, in the instant case, no such evidence is forthcoming. The accused is required to rebut the presumption on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and mere denial or putting suggestion does not amount to rebuttal of presumption. The defence of accused should be more probable. But, in the instant case, no such evidence is forthcoming. Further, if that cheque was taken forcibly, nothing prevented the accused from lodging complaint in this regard. Hence, the defence set-up by the accused cannot be accepted at any stretch of imagination. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant. There is no dispute regarding the cheque belongs to the accused and it bears her signature. During the course of arguments, the accused tried to make-out a case of challenging financial status of the complainant. But, the entire cross-examination reveals that the financial status of the complainant was not at all denied or challenged. On the contrary, the accused/DW.1 admitted that, her husband availed loan from complainant. Under such circumstances, both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has issued a cheque to the complainant towards legally dischargeable debt and the same was bounced. 13. Much arguments have been advanced regarding notice, which has no relevancy and both the Courts below have in detail considered these aspects and have rightly convicted the accused. No illegality or infirmity is found in the judgment of the trial Court, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court, so as to call for any interference by this Court. 14. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The petition is dismissed. ii) the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2016 passed by XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in CC No. 15213/2014 and affirmed by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.1013/2016 vide judgment dated 17.01.2019 stand confirmed. The Registry is directed to send back the TCRs. to the concerned Courts below with a copy of this order, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of accused/revision petitioner herein for the purpose of serving sentence and collection of fine/compensation amount. The Registry is directed to send back the TCRs. to the concerned Courts below with a copy of this order, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of accused/revision petitioner herein for the purpose of serving sentence and collection of fine/compensation amount. In view of dismissal of this revision petition, IA No.2/2019 filed for Suspension of Sentence does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it stands disposed of.