JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgement dated 17th February 2023 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur for committing offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) and has been directed to pay Rs. 18,50,000/- as fine amount out of which an amount of Rs. 18,45,000/- has to be given to the complainant as compensation. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half year with default sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant was working in a bank. In order to get loan, the petitioner was in negotiating term with the complainant and he was informed that certain blank cheques were to be deposited with the bank and therefore these cheques were handed over to the complainant which were misused. He has submitted that there was no legally payable debt, rather blank cheques were signed and handed over only by way of security. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there was no legally payable debt on the date when so called agreement dated 06.12.2017 was executed. 3. He has further submitted that as per the complaint, the petitioner had approached the complainant in December 2017 for a loan and the agreement was entered on 06.12.2017 and thereafter the loan was disbursed. He submits that the cheque numbers have been duly mentioned in the agreement and therefore on the date the cheques were delivered to the opposite party No. 2, there was no legally payable debt. He submits that the complainant had improved his case in his evidence by stating that the loan was advanced to the petitioner during the period from 2015 to 2017. 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had raised a plausible defence before the learned court that there was no legally payable debt but this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of "Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa" (Cr. Appeal No. 636 of 2019) and has referred to paragraph 23 of the said judgement. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of "Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa" (Cr. Appeal No. 636 of 2019) and has referred to paragraph 23 of the said judgement. Learned counsel has submitted that aforesaid submission is without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner that though the cheques were signed by the petitioner but signature of the petitioner was taken on a number of blank papers. Learned counsel has also submitted that the evidence of C.W. 2 and C.W. 3 as well as the defence evidence of the petitioner has not been properly considered and therefore the impugned judgements are perverse and call for interference. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences in revisional jurisdiction. There are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and considering the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction and the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no case is made out by the petitioner. Findings of this Court. 6. As per the complaint, during the first week of December, 2017 the accused had approached the complainant for a friendly loan amounting to Rs. 15.25 lakhs to which the complainant agreed and an agreement dated 06.12.2017 was prepared for a friendly loan. Believing the content of the said agreement, the complainant agreed to advance to the accused the aforesaid amount of friendly loan and disbursed an amount of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. The accused assured the complainant that the friendly loan will be returned by 31.01.2018 and accordingly issued three cheques bearing nos. 026115, 026116 and 026120 amounting to Rs. 6.30 lakhs, 6.30 lakhs and 2.65 lakhs respectively, all dated 17.05.2018 drawn on Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur. 7. Upon presentation, the said cheques returned unpaid to the complainant on 18.05.2018 with a note "account closed". A demand notice dated 11.06.2018 was issued vide registered post dated 11.06.2018, which was received by the accused on 12.06.2018 as per track consignment report, but the amount was not paid within 15 days and ultimately, the complaint case was filed on 06.07.2018. 8. A demand notice dated 11.06.2018 was issued vide registered post dated 11.06.2018, which was received by the accused on 12.06.2018 as per track consignment report, but the amount was not paid within 15 days and ultimately, the complaint case was filed on 06.07.2018. 8. However, the complainant in his evidence has stated that the accused had approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.15.25 lakhs and on request, the accused advanced him the said friendly loan in installments on returnable basis without interest between 2015 and 2017 by cheque and cash. He further gave the details of the cheques from bank account of his wife in Canara Bank, Mango Branch, Jamshedpur, the details of which are as under: Cheque no. Cheque dated Amount 387914 08.08.2015 Rs. 28,000/- 387921 31.10.2015 Rs. 26,000/- 387926 24.11.2015 Rs. 1,00,000/- 506039 30.01.2016 Rs. 50,000/- 9. The details of the cheques from the bank account of the son in in S.B.I., Mango Branch, Jamshedpur was also given which is as under: Cheque no. Cheque dated Amount 564761 10.02.2016 Rs. 59,400/- 564764 05.03.2016 Rs. 52,700/- 564770 12.04.2016 Rs. 30,000/- 564773 02.05.2016 Rs. 62,670/- 564778 12.07.2016 Rs. 32000/- The three original passbooks were exhibited as Exhibit 1, 1/1, and 1/2. The two original passbooks of son of the complainant were exhibited as Exhibit 2 and 2/1. It was his case in evidence that thereafter accused Devendra Kumar Singh entered into an agreement dated 06.12.2017 for the said friendly loan. The accused had assured that the aforesaid friendly loan, total amounting to Rs 15,25,000/-, will be returned to the complainant by 31.01.2018 and consequently the three cheques involved in the present case were issued. During his cross-examination also, the complainant had clearly stated that the agreement was made one year after payment. 10. This Court finds that there is a difference between the averments made in the complaint petition wherein it was specifically asserted that during the first week of December 2017, the accused had approached and requested the complainant for a friendly loan amounting to Rs 15.25 lakhs to which the complainant agreed and advanced the said amount after preparation of agreement for friendly loan dated 06th December 2017. In contrast, in the evidence on affidavit, the complainant has taken a stand by stating that the amount was paid by way of friendly loan total Rs 15.25 lakhs between 2015 and 2017 by his wife and son and thereafter the accused entered into the agreement dated 06.12.2017. The complainant has been fully cross examined and during cross-examination, the complainant has stated that the payment made by his wife was through cheque and some amount was also paid through cash. He has also stated during cross-examination that his son and his wife have not given him any authorization to file the case. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not disclosed that part of the payment was made through cash. This court is of the considered view that the aforesaid difference in the stand has no bearing as the complainant has proved that the amount was paid to the accused during the period 2015 to 2017 and there was a legally payable debt given to the accused/petitioner by way of friendly loan. The stand of the complainant in his evidence is supported by other witnesses. 11. The second witness adduced on behalf of the complainant was Dilip Kumar, son of Ravindra Poddar who was examined as CW-2. He asserted in his evidence on affidavit that he is a relative of the complainant and that the complainant had paid friendly loan of Rs.15.25 lakhs only through cheques and cash during several transactions on returnable basis between 2015 and 2017 and he was one of the witnesses in the agreement for friendly loan which was executed in December 2017. He further stated that the accused had issued three cheques for repayment of the friendly loan of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. This witness has also been thoroughly cross-examined and he has stated that the complainant and his family had paid the amount during the period from 2015 to 2017 which was partly disbursed in cheque and partly in cash. 12. One more witness namely Panchu Ram (CW-3) has been examined on behalf of the complainant. He has also supported the prosecution case in the same manner as that of CW-2. 12. One more witness namely Panchu Ram (CW-3) has been examined on behalf of the complainant. He has also supported the prosecution case in the same manner as that of CW-2. He has also been cross-examined and during cross-examination he has stated that Rs 15.25 lakhs was paid by the complainant to the accused for construction of his house and such payment was made both through cash and cheque during the period 2016-17. He has referred to the agreement between the complainant and the accused which is said to have been prepared on 06th December 2017. He has further stated that at the time of agreement itself, three cheques were given by the accused to the complainant for amount of Rs. 6.30 lakhs, 6.30 lakhs and 2.65 lakhs. He has also stated that the cheques were filled up in his presence and all the three cheques were of the same bank. 13. The defence had also adduced evidence. DW-1 was the accused himself. He has stated in his evidence that the complainant is known to him for 2 ½ years and that he is an employee of the bank and therefore he knows him. He has denied the case of the complainant that the accused ( D.W-1) had taken loan of Rs 15 lakhs from the complainant. This witness has also stated that the allegation that cheques of Rs. 15.25 lakhs were issued by way of return of loan, was incorrect. He has explained that the complainant had called him to the bank for a loan and assured him that loan will be sanctioned and asked him to sign on blank cheques and also asked him to sign on few blank papers, but ultimately did not give loan and upon demand of return of the blank cheques, the complainant did not return said cheques to him and filed false case relating to bouncing of cheques. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that he did not know as to when the complainant had attained the age of superannuation. He did not remember on how many pages did he sign. He has denied that there was any transaction with the complainant. He has also denied having handed over the cheques to the complainant and clarified that the cheques were given for the purposes of loan. He did not remember on how many pages did he sign. He has denied that there was any transaction with the complainant. He has also denied having handed over the cheques to the complainant and clarified that the cheques were given for the purposes of loan. This witness has further denied having signed any agreement rather he stated that signature was taken on blank pages. He has further stated that the complainant had threatened him for realization of money and he had filed a case before the court which was pending. He has also denied that the cheques were given for the purposes of sanction of loan. He has denied that the complainant had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2012. He has further stated in his cross-examination that his loan was never passed and denied that the cheque was issued for the purposes of getting the loan sanctioned. 14. Apart from the pass books of the wife and son, the agreement was exhibited by the complainant as Exhibit 3. The cheques were exhibited as Exhibit 4, 4/1 and 4/2. Cheque return memos were exhibited as Exhibit 5, 5/1 and 5/2. The legal notice was exhibited as Exhibit 6, postal receipt as Exhibit 7 and tracking report was exhibited as Exhibit 8. 15. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the accused stated that he had issued the cheques by way of security which was misused and that he did not receive the legal notice. The accused asserted that he is innocent. 16. The learned Trial Court convicted the accused and recorded that the complainant has been able to prove all the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, the Court could safely take the statutory presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In paragraph 18, the learned Court recorded that the only question remained to be adjudicated by the court was to see whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption taken by the court under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In paragraph 18, the learned Court recorded that the only question remained to be adjudicated by the court was to see whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption taken by the court under Section 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The findings of the learned Trial Court with respect to the aforesaid issue is at paragraph 19 onwards and some of the important findings are as follows: - I. The learned Trial Court has recorded that admittedly the parties are friendly; the bank statements of the complainant's wife and son, showing the details of the money transferred in the account of the accused were exhibited; Exhibit 3 was the loan agreement dated 06.12.2017 in which the accused and the complainant are the signatories and the sum and substance of the agreement was that the accused admitted that he had taken the loan amount of Rs. 15.25 lakhs from the complainant and for discharge of the said legal debt, he had issued the three cheques all dated 17.05.2018 amounting to Rs. 6.30 lakhs, 6.30 lakhs and 2.65 lakhs respectively. The witnesses of the loan agreement have been examined as CW-1 and CW-3 and they have been duly cross-examined and they have supported the case of the complainant. II. With regard to the plea of the accused that the accused had issued the cheques only by way of security purpose and that the same were misused, the learned trial court has held such a plea to be wholly unnatural and unbelievable by observing that if the accused was to obtain any loan from the bank, the accused should not have signed blank papers and cheques and hand over the same to the complainant and such plea was rejected on the face of the documents like the bank statement (Exhibit 1, 1/1, 1/2 , 2 and 2/1), loan agreement (Exhibit 3) and Cheques (Exhibit 4, 4/ 1, and 4/ 2) which gave the complete picture of the transactions. III. III. The argument of the defence that the complainant was not the holder in due course, as his wife and son have not given him any authority for realization of money in question was held to have no force by holding that the wife and son are family members of the complainant and therefore their money could be said to be the money of the complainant and further the wife and son were not the agreement holders and consequently the aforesaid argument was rejected. IV. The learned Trial Court also rejected the argument of the accused that the complainant had mentioned for the first time in his cross-examination that the loan amount was given in installment between 2015 to 2017 vide paragraph 22 of its judgment. V. Paragraph 20 to 24 of the judgement of the learned trial court dealing with and rejecting each and every argument of the accused/petitioner is quoted as under: - "20. So far as the plea of the accused regarding the fact that the complainant has offered help to the accused in obtaining loan from the bank as he is the bank employee and in response thereof the accused has issued the impugned cheques only for security purposes, but the same was subsequently misused seems to this court wholly unnatural and unbelievable plea for the simple reason that if the accused was to obtained any loan from any bank, the accused should not have to sign blank papers and cheques and hand over to same to the complainant. Further more this plea seems to be unbelievable on the face of the documents like bank statements (Ext. 1, 1/1, ½, 2 and 2/1) loan agreement (Ext. 3) and Impugned cheques (Ext.4, 4/1, and 4/2). 21. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the complainant is not the holder in due course, as his wife and son have not given him any authority for realization of money in question has no force in view of the fact that the wife and the son of the complainant are his own family members and, as such, the money of the wife and the son can be said to be the money of the complainant himself. Further more, wife and son are not the agreement holders. Thus, this argument is hereby rejected. 22. The argument of the Ld. Further more, wife and son are not the agreement holders. Thus, this argument is hereby rejected. 22. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the complainant has mentioned for the first time in his cross examination that the loan amount is given in installments between the years 2015 to 2017, and that the same fact is not mentioned either in the complaint petition, examination in chief or legal notice, does not break much of the ice. Fact remains the same that the loan amount is Rs. 15,25,000/-only. Cross examination regarding payment by installments is only speaking about methodology and times of payment and nothing more. 23. The conclusion of the fact that the complainant has been able to prove its case, which this court is taking, is supported by the law laid down in the Honorable Apex Court in Bir Singh vs Mukesh Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 197, wherein their Lordships have held in para 34 "if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence". In para 36 "Even a bank cheque leaf, voluntarily singed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt". 24. Considering the above discussions made herein above and also considering the judicial pronouncements, this court finds that the complainant has successfully proved that the cheque in question was issued under the signature of the accused and that there is no dispute regarding the signature of the accused. I further find that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption taken in favour of the complainant and, therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly accused namely Devendra Kumar Singh is hereby convicted U/s 138 of the N.I. Act." VI. Ultimately, after rejecting all the contentions, the learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty and directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 18.50 lakhs. Accordingly accused namely Devendra Kumar Singh is hereby convicted U/s 138 of the N.I. Act." VI. Ultimately, after rejecting all the contentions, the learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty and directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 18.50 lakhs. The learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 ½ years. 17. The learned Appellate Court also considered the materials on record and dismissed the appeal. The findings of the learned Appellate Court at paragraph 8 are quoted as under: “8…. In this regard going through the LCR, it appears regarding proof of the aforesaid facts, the complainant had examined himself on affidavit dated 18/01/2019 as C.W.1 and during his examination, he has supported his case and stated that he had paid the aforesaid friendly loan to the accused/appellant between 2015 to 2017 by cheque and cash and further he proved a bunch of documents vide Ext. 1, 1/1, 1/2 i.e. Original pass book of Canara Bank in the name of his wife Sulochana Devi bearing account no. 2970101041128 and further he proved document vide Ext. 2, 2/1 i.e. the original passbook of his son namely Ashish Kumar having bank account No. 20007256956 of State Bank of India, Jamshedpur and paid some different amount through various dates cheques and all these transactions are shown in the aforesaid account and further he proves the payment of rest amount in cash to the accused and he proves the agreement dated 06/12/2017 with the accused/appellant wherein both parties were entered about the terms and condition for discharge of the liability vide Ext. 3 and this document shows that the same was notarized document signed by both parties which is admitted by the accused/appellant during his evidence also vide Ext. A and in this agreement it is also admitted by the accused/appellant that he had issued the aforesaid three cheques in question but he stated that he issued the blank signed cheque for security. Further this witness proves that original cheque handed over by the accused/appellant vide Ext. 4, 4/1 and 4/2 which has not been denied by the accused also and the three return memos dated 18/05/2018 vide Ext. 5, 5/1 and 5/2…. Further this witness proves that original cheque handed over by the accused/appellant vide Ext. 4, 4/1 and 4/2 which has not been denied by the accused also and the three return memos dated 18/05/2018 vide Ext. 5, 5/1 and 5/2…. …Further the complainant had also produced two other witnesses namely Dilip Kumar and Panchu Ram, who also examined themselves on affidavit and supported the case of the complainant/respondent in toto regarding the giving of the friendly loan to the accused and issuance of the cheque with his signature and that the agreement dated 06/12/2017 between the parties and on the aforesaid points all the above three witness have been cross-examined at length. During cross examination also baring few minor contradictions not in vital in nature they are consistent about the fact regarding given of friendly loan to the accused as alleged by the complainant in his complaint petition as well as regarding agreement for the same vide dated 06/12/2017 (Ext. 3) signed by the accused and mode of payment of the friendly loan to the accused/appellant and all these evidence oral and documentary going to establish the rebuttable presumption U/s 118 read with Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the complainant…” 18. All the defence arguments of the petitioner were rejected by the learned appellate Court vide paragraph 9 of its judgment which is quoted as under: “9. So far the question raised by the Ld. Defence counsel that the agreement dated 06/12/2017 does not bear the date is concerned, it appears the same was prepared on 06/12/2017 before the Notary public and in this view of the fact, it will be inferred that the same was executed on 06/12/2017. At this juncture, it is the duty of the accused/appellant to rebut the said presumption by preponderance of probability and in this regard on going through the statement of the accused/appellant U/s 313 Cr.P.C. it appears he has denied any cheques liability but he admitted this fact that he had issued the cheque as a security which has been misused and he did not receive any legal demand notice. In this regard he has also examined himself as D.W. 1 where he denied the cheque liability but he admitted this fact that he had signed aforesaid cheque and handed over to the complainant for a bank loan and the complainant had obtained his so many signatures on stamp and blank papers for the aforesaid purpose which has been misused by him and when he threatened for recovery of the said 15 Lakhs cheque amount he had filed a complaint in the year 2018 vide Ext. B against the complainant and one Dilip Poddar vide C/1 case no. 1241/2018 and from this document also it is establish that the accused/appellant had handed over the aforesaid cheques with his signature for discharge of his legal debts and other liabilities. Further from this document the accused has come with another story that he negotiated with the complainant who is builder for development of his land for construction of apartment and in this regard he had handed over the aforesaid cheques but at the same as per his statement as D.W.1 at para 2 of examination-in-chief he stated that he is knowing the complainant as bank employee and on assurance of providing loan he has handed over the said cheque but the same has been misused by the complainant but on cross-examination he admitted that through the aforesaid cheques the transaction was made in between them which is going to show that same is not a plausible defence to create any doubt about the prosecution story. So far the question raised by the appellant that wife and son of the complainant has not been given any authority to this complainant for filing of this case as well as they have not been made witness is concerned, are not relevant in the facts of this case as because as per provision of Section -138 of the N.I. Act itself it is clear that cheque may be issued for legally enforceable any debt or other liability and all these evidences are sufficient to show that the defence has failed to discharge his burdened duty by preponderance of probability to create any doubt about the complainant story rather the complainant has been fully able to establish his case regarding cheques liability against the accused and the complaint was also filed after compliance of all statutory requirement U/s 138 read with section 142 of the N.I. Act. So far the question raised by the accused that he has handed over the blank cheque with his signature to the complainant is concerned in this regard I would like to reply upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bir Singh Versus Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197 ..." 19. This Court finds that, as already discussed above, the case of the complainant in the complaint petition was that the loan was advanced after entering into agreement on 06.12.2017, but even in the evidence-in-chief, the complainant has stated that the loan was advanced during the period between 2015 and 2017 and the said transaction of extending loan to the petitioner was duly backed by the bank statements of the wife and son of the complainant. The fact of loan and the details of the cheques by which the amount was returned was mentioned in the agreement. Considering the fact that the loan was advanced through banking transaction during the period 2015 to 2017 and prior to the agreement was duly proved, accordingly this court is of the considered view that such difference in the complaint and evidence of the complainant is not fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant at the stage of his solemn affirmation itself had deposed that the loan was extended, interalia, through cheques to the petitioner during the period from 2015-2017. If the date of advancement of loan is taken as a date after execution of the agreement, then certainly the three cheques which were mentioned in the agreement could not have been said to have been issued against a legally payable debt but in the instant case the date of extending loan is spread over from 2015 to 2017 supported by bank statements which have been duly exhibited by the complainant. This is coupled with the presumption assigned to the cheques that they have been issued in discharge of legally payable debt. The other two witnesses who were also the witnesses to the agreement had deposed before the learned Court that the amount was advanced between the period 2015 and 2017. 20. This is coupled with the presumption assigned to the cheques that they have been issued in discharge of legally payable debt. The other two witnesses who were also the witnesses to the agreement had deposed before the learned Court that the amount was advanced between the period 2015 and 2017. 20. This Court finds that although there is a variance in the complaint case and the evidence of the complainant witnesses with regard to the period when the loan was advanced to the extent that in the complaint case it was stated that loan was advanced in 2017 whereas in the evidence it was stated that the loan was advanced during the period from 2015 to 2017, but the fact that the huge amount was paid to the accused by the family of the complainant is not in dispute, inasmuch as, most of the transactions were through bank. There is no explanation and no cross-examination of the complainant witnesses from the side of the defence with regard to the aforesaid bank transactions of the accused with wife and son of the complainant. Thus, huge amount having been received by the accused from the wife and son of the complainant stood admitted. No material has been brought on record by the accused with regard to repayment of the amount received from wife and son of the complainant. 21. Upon close examination of the agreement, this Court finds that it has been clearly mentioned therein that the loan was already advanced. The agreement is an admitted document between the parties. 22. On the face of the huge amount extended by the complainant and his family to the accused prior to execution of the agreement, it cannot be said that the cheques were issued, as mentioned in the agreement, by way of security or for any other purpose. This is over and above the settled proposition of law that the Courts in revisional jurisdiction do not re-appreciate the materials on record and come to a different finding, except in cases of perversity or material irregularity. 23. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr. This is over and above the settled proposition of law that the Courts in revisional jurisdiction do not re-appreciate the materials on record and come to a different finding, except in cases of perversity or material irregularity. 23. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 636 of 2019 (Supra) and relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it has been held in paragraph 23 of the said judgment that once the execution of cheque is admitted, section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. However, the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof is to be considered on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. It has also been held that in order to rebut the presumption, the accused can also rely upon the materials brought on record by the complainant and it is not necessary that the accused should come in the witness box to support his defence. Paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:- (i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.” 24. There can be no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition of law as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 636 of 2019 (Supra). However, the aforesaid judgement does not help the petitioner in any manner. In the present case, the signature and issuance of cheques is admitted and therefore, a presumption has been raised in terms of section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued for discharge of debt or other liability. However, the accused/petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption even on the touchstone of the principles of preponderance of probabilities. On the other hand, the complainant has proved advancement of money to the accused through banking transactions during the period from 2015 to 2017 and has also proved issuance of three cheques involved in this case to refund the said money. The defence of the accused/petitioner that the three cheques were issued by way of security or for the purposes of advancement of loan from the bank is not even a probable defence in the facts and circumstances of this case as the debt was duly proved by the complainant. The accused/petitioner has not been able to rebut the statutory presumption coupled with positive evidence led by the complainant with regards to existence of debt which led to the issuance of the three cheques involved in this case. Thus, the accused/petitioner has failed to discharged the initial onus to raise the probable defence based on materials on record and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. The learned trial Court has considered each and every argument of the accused/petitioner and has rejected the same by citing reasons vide paragraph 19 to 24 of its judgment and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to persuade this Court to take a different view. 25. The law is well-settled that there is no scope for reappreciation of materials on record in revisional jurisdiction except in case of perversity or material irregularity. 25. The law is well-settled that there is no scope for reappreciation of materials on record in revisional jurisdiction except in case of perversity or material irregularity. In the present case, two Courts have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner and the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for interference in the impugned judgments of conviction falling within the contours of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments. This Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 27. It is just to put on record that vide order dated 05.01.2024, the petitioner was granted time to file supplementary-affidavit with regard to deposit of 20% amount of compensation before the learned appellate Court. A supplementary-affidavit dated 12.04.2024 has been placed on record showing deposit of Rs. 65,000/- on 07.05.2022 at the appellate stage in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2022 before Nazir, Civil Court, Jamshedpur. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- has been said to have been deposited on 09.04.2024 before Nazir, Civil Court, Jamshedpur during the pendency of this revision application. 28. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX’. 29. Let the records received from the learned Court be sent back to the Court concerned.