ORDER : 1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.78/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kanjirappally. She stood trial for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act before the said court and was convicted and sentenced thereunder. The accused challenged the said conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 before the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam and the said court by judgment dated 28.07.2016, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence passed by the trial court. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The accused, who is the owner of 8.25 cents of property comprised in Survey No.198/1-B of Mundakkayam Village, entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.2,47,500/-, on 18.01.2007. At the time of execution of the agreement, the accused received Rs.1 lakh as an advance and subsequently, on 02.02.2007, received another Rs.1,47,500/-. The accused neither executed the sale deed nor returned the amount paid. After repeated requests and mediations, the accused agreed to pay the amount with interest and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.10.2012 for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, on 01.10.2012. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured for the reason that funds were insufficient. The statutory notice issued to the accused also did not evoke any response and hence, the complainant preferred the complaint against the accused. 3. In the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 documents were marked. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against her in evidence and contended that she is innocent. The accused stated that she never entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant or has received the amounts as alleged by him. She had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for interest through one Subair Hassan and at that time, as a security, had executed an agreement for sale with respect to 8.25 cents of property. Three blank signed cheques were also given by the accused to the complainant at that time. She had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for interest through one Subair Hassan and at that time, as a security, had executed an agreement for sale with respect to 8.25 cents of property. Three blank signed cheques were also given by the accused to the complainant at that time. Later, on 02.02.2007, she borrowed another Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and at that time as security, was compelled to make an endorsement on the reverse side of the agreement for sale and also to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant for the purpose of transacting her property. She also stated that even though she paid substantial amounts to the complainant, the complainant did not return the documents including the cheque and misused one among them. 4. From the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 document was marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted her under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 138 of the NI Act. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. In the appeal preferred by the accused as Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 the conviction was upheld and the sentence was modified to one of payment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs, with a default clause. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the cheque, which was given as security at the time when the accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, has been misused in this case. He submitted that, on 18.01.2007, when the accused thus borrowed the amount, she was also forced to execute an agreement for sale with respect to her property. Subsequently, on 02.02.2007, when the accused again borrowed another Rs.50,000/- she was made to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant, authorising him to deal with the property and to make an endorsement in the reverse of the agreement. He argued that, in order to prove the version of the accused, DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked. He argued that, in order to prove the version of the accused, DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked. But both the trial court and the appellate court did not properly appreciate the evidence thus adduced and reached a wrong conclusion of guilt. He further submitted that the version of the complainant that, even after receipt of the entire sale consideration, the sale deed was not executed and his further version that even five years thereafter, the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque, when admittedly the claim under the sale agreement has got barred, is not at all believable. He would argue that even though the complainant had contended that it is as per the result of a mediation, the figure of Rs.5 lakhs was reached, and Ext.P1 cheque was executed, the complainant did not examine any of the mediators who allegedly participated in the settlement talks. He contended that even if interest is calculated and added, it will not tally with the figure in Ext.P1 cheque, and the said fact also improbablises the case of the complainant. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing this revision petition. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that the concurrent findings of fact reached by both the courts may not be disturbed since there is no error in the appreciation of evidence by these courts. He argued that the version of PW1 regarding the original transaction is also corroborated by Ext.P7 agreement and it shows that an amount of Rs.2,47,500/- has already been paid to the accused as consideration. He further submitted that the evidence of PW1 regarding the execution of cheque and the circumstances leading to the execution are credible and cogent. He argued that since the signature in Ext.P1 cheque is admitted by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act gets attracted and the accused has failed to rebut it. He further argued that the version of DW1 is not believable since he himself has admitted signing Ext.P7, after reading it and that Ext.D1, Power of Attorney, executed in favour of the complainant only probabilises the fact of receipt of the entire sale consideration and the execution of Ext.P7 agreement. Hence, he prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed. 9. The materials on record show that PW1 has given evidence in tune with the averments in the complaint. Hence, he prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed. 9. The materials on record show that PW1 has given evidence in tune with the averments in the complaint. His evidence is to the effect that, on 18.01.2007, Ext.P7 agreement for sale was executed between him and the accused, after paying Rs.1 lakh as advance. Subsequently on 02.02.2007, the accused received another sum of Rs.1,47,500/-. It is to be seen that the recitals in Ext.P7 also confirms the same. PW1 has also deposed that since the agreement did not materialise and the money was not returned, mediation took place and as a result, the accused agreed to pay the money with interest and issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.5 lakhs. It is very pertinent to take note that the accused has not disputed her signature in Ext.P1. In the light of the evidence of PW1, the initial burden cast upon the complainant stands discharged, and the presumptions under the NI Act get attracted. Now, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumptions atleast by preponderance of probability by adducing evidence or by showing that the case of the complainant is improbable or that the version of the accused is not probable. 10. In the present case, the contention of the accused is that it is when she borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, she was made to execute Ext.P1 cheque and Ext.P7 agreement. It is also her case that subsequently, she had borrowed another Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 02.02.2007, on which date she was made to execute Ext.D1 Power of Attorney and endorse in the reverse of Ext.P7. In order to substantiate the afore contentions, the accused has examined DW1, who is a witness to both Exts.P7 and D1. The trial court and the appellate court did not place any reliance upon the evidence of DW1 since his evidence was found not credible. An appraisal of the evidence of DW1 would go to show that he himself has admitted affixing his signature in Ext.P7, after reading it. Even though DW1 would say that it was only Rs.50,000/- which was borrowed by the accused on two occasions from the complainant, no explanation is forthcoming either from the side of the accused or from DW1 as to under what circumstances, he affixed his signature as witness in Ext.P7 agreement, which speaks about the receipt of Rs.2,47,500/- by the accused. Even though DW1 would say that it was only Rs.50,000/- which was borrowed by the accused on two occasions from the complainant, no explanation is forthcoming either from the side of the accused or from DW1 as to under what circumstances, he affixed his signature as witness in Ext.P7 agreement, which speaks about the receipt of Rs.2,47,500/- by the accused. Further, it is to be taken note that no plausible explanation is also forthcoming from the side of the accused as to why she had executed Ext.D1 Power of Attorney on 02.02.2007 even though, her version is that she had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- at that time. If so, in the light of the afore evidence, I have no hesitation to concur with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that the evidence of DW1 is not reliable. This in turn means that the accused has failed to make out a probable defence, and rebut the presumptions. 11. Coming to the contention of the revision petitioner that the cheque is issued for a time barred debt, and therefore, will not come under the purview of a legally enforceable debt, again I am of the view that there is no merit in it. First of all it is to be seen that the evidence of PW1 is categoric and shows that it is when the advance amount was not returned and mediation talks took place, the accused has agreed to repay the amount with interest and has issued Ext.P1 cheque, in 2012. It is to be taken note that the evidence of PW1 on this aspect, even after cross examination, remains credible. Even if it is otherwise so, it is a settled law, as held by this Court in Ramakrishnan vs. Parthasaradhy, 2003 (2) KLT 613 and Mamman S.A. vs. C.P. Gopalan Achari and Another , 2011 (3) KHC 806 that even if a cheque is issued for a time barred debt, it amounts to fresh acknowledgment of debt and the accused cannot contend that the claim is barred by limitation. If so, I find that the afore contention of the accused also does not have any legs to stand. 12. In the light of the afore discussions, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the trial court and the appellate court convicting the accused. If so, I find that the afore contention of the accused also does not have any legs to stand. 12. In the light of the afore discussions, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the trial court and the appellate court convicting the accused. Therefore, the challenge raised on merit fails. 13. Coming to the question of sentence, as stated earlier, the appellate court has taken a lenient view and has only imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.5 lakhs with a default clause. The same also cannot be stated as unjust or excessive. 14. Ergo, I find no merit in this Crl. RP and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.