ORDER : RAVI V. HOSMANI, J. Challenging judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60), in Crl.A.no.76/2023 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2022 passed by XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.13759/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri BR Viswanath, learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.1) submitted that revision petition was against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short). It was submitted, impugned proceedings were based on a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘ CrPC ’, for short) alleging that accused no.1 was introduced to complainant by a common friend Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, and that accused no.1 and 2 had approached her for hand loan to improve their fruits business and on 16.03.2017, they had received Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque no.925445 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.03.2017 by cash and Rs.2,50,000/- each on 23.05.2017 by cheques no.258301 and 258303 drawn on Syndicate Bank, from complainant. Further, Rs.5,00,000/- received as lease amount from his tenant in May, 2017, by complainant’s husband was also lent in first week of June, 2017, when accused requested for further loan. It was stated that accused had agreed to repay entire amount with interest at 1% within 6 to 8 months and also paid interest for three months. On default in payment of interest and lapse of 8 months, when complainant demanded repayment, accused no.1 had issued cheque no.525647 dated 16.02.2018 for Rs.12,50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented on 19.04.2018, returned unpaid with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ on 21.04.2018 and thereafter even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 27.04.2018 by RPAD, same had returned with endorsement ‘not claimed’ and accused failed to repay amount within time thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined herself and three others as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P14. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and their statements under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. Thereafter, complainant examined herself and three others as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P14. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and their statements under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D5. It was submitted, accused had taken up various defences including denying existence of relationship of creditor and debtor, that payment made were towards purchase of fruits for distribution, that PW.2 acquainted with accused had stolen cheque from shop of accused no.1, that complainant failed to establish her financial capacity to lend money as claimed, that PW.1 despite being educated claimed not to remember date of lending and elicited admission from complainant – PW.1 that liability to pay amount in question was on accused no.2, without proper appreciation trial Court convicted accused. It was submitted, in her deposition, PW.1 had stated that payment was made by her to BKS Fruits and admitted accused no.2 was its owner and not accused no.1. She also admitted to have made efforts for recovery from accused no.2. Thus, when accused no.1 was neither guarantor nor surety, arraignment of accused no.1 was contrary to provisions of Sections 120 and 128 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. 4. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court observed there was admission by accused no.2 that issuance of cheque was towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Relying upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh , reported in 2023 (10) SCC 148 , for proposition that Section 139 of NI Act, provided for statutory presumption that unless contrary proved, cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and in case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar , reported in 2019 (4) SCC 197 , had held mere admission of drawer’s signature without admitting execution of entire contents of cheque was sufficient to draw presumption, it was submitted, accused no.1 had led evidence and also elicited in cross- examination of PW.1 that there was no material to directly implicate accused no.1 of liability under cheque in question and as such, upset presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. Trial Court had failed to appreciate same. Even appeal filed was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition. It was submitted, thus impugned judgments suffered from perversity and sought for allowing revision petition. Trial Court had failed to appreciate same. Even appeal filed was dismissed without proper re-appreciation leading to this revision petition. It was submitted, thus impugned judgments suffered from perversity and sought for allowing revision petition. 5. On other hand, Sri HC Shivaramu, learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition on ground that it was against concurrent findings. It was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court specifically observed that accused no.1 and 2 are father and son and in Ex.D3 – reply, accused no.1 had not denied knowing complainant. It also observed contention of Rafeeq Ahmad having stolen cheque from shop of accused was not stated by DW.2 (accused no.2) and no complaint was filed in that regard nor intimation given to Bank. Trial Court observed that as per PW.1, out of Rs.12,50,000/- lent to accused, Rs.6,00,000/- was given to accused no.2. It also noted admission by accused no.2 being proprietor of BKS Fruits and Juice. However, it observed, admission by DW.1 that cheque pertained to his bank account and signature on it was his. There was further admission that regardless of transaction, he had received amount. From above, it had concluded that cheque in question was issued by accused no.1 for repayment of his debt with complainant. Based on above observations, it acquitted accused no.2 and convicted accused no.1. 6. It was submitted, even appellate Court had observed that Ex.P14 – Syndicate Bank Account Passbook of complainant showed transfer of money from complainant to accused no.2, which was admitted by DW.2. It also observed admission by DW.1 about receipt of entire money, even where transaction reflected it to be with his son. And further, DW-1 had categorically admitted his signature on Ex.P1 - cheque, which belonged to him. In view of above and as there was failure to substantiate that cheque was stolen by Rafeeq Ahmad. On said observation, it confirmed trial Court judgment. Thus, both Courts had on appreciation of entire material on record passed impugned judgments based on reasoned conclusions and prayed for dismissal. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 8. This revision petition is by accused no.1 challenging concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings. 9. First contention for challenging conviction is denial of legally enforceable debt for issuance of Ex.P1 – cheque. 7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 8. This revision petition is by accused no.1 challenging concurrent judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings. 9. First contention for challenging conviction is denial of legally enforceable debt for issuance of Ex.P1 – cheque. Perusal of complaint reveals statement by complainant that accused were introduced to her by Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, who was known to her. They had approached her for hand loan to improve their fruit business at City Market, Bengaluru and to invest money in BKS Fruits, Juice and Chats and that she had lent total of Rs.12,50,000/- on various dates by cash and cheque, on assurance to return money with interest. She also stated that accused stopped paying interest after 3 months and on her request for repayment, accused no.1 had issued cheque in question on behalf of his son. There is no dispute about presentation of cheque, its dishonor, service of demand notice and filing of private complaint within time stipulated in NI Act. Complainant deposed as PW.1 in terms of her complaint and produced cheque as Ex.P1, endorsement as Ex.P2, demand notice as Ex.P3, postal receipts and acknowledgment as Exs.P4 to P7, returned covers as Exs.P8 and P9, certified copy of order-sheet, copy of private complaint, sworn statement of complainant and list of documents in C.C.no.29624/2017 as Exs.P10 to P13 and Syndicate Passbook as Ex.P14. She also examined Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad, Irfan Ahmad and Mustaffa as PWs. 2 to 4. 10. PW.1 is cross-examined by suggesting that during Ramzan of 2018, she along with 10-15 others purchased fruits in large quantities for distribution to poor. An admission is elicited that accused no.1 and PW.2 are having financial transaction i.e. PW.2 having invested money in business of accused no.1 had advised complainant to do likewise and that an agreement was drawn in respect of said transaction. An admission is also elicited that transaction took place between complainant and accused without involving PW.2. Contradictory suggestion that there was no transaction between complainant and accused is denied. Likewise, even suggestion that amount paid by complainant was towards purchase of fruits from BKS Fruits is also denied. It is also suggested that complainant had misused cheques forcibly taken by PW.4 from accused for present proceedings is also denied. Contradictory suggestion that there was no transaction between complainant and accused is denied. Likewise, even suggestion that amount paid by complainant was towards purchase of fruits from BKS Fruits is also denied. It is also suggested that complainant had misused cheques forcibly taken by PW.4 from accused for present proceedings is also denied. However, PW.1 admits that Ex.P1 – cheque does not bear name and signature of accused no.2 is admitted. 11. PW.1 is also cross-examined insofar as her financial capacity. An admission is elicited that complainant is a teacher, earning Rs.20,000/- per month, that income from Footwear business was Rs.50,000/- per month. But suggestion that she did not have financial capacity to lend Rs.12,50,000/- and had filed false case are denied. She is also cross-examined about manner of payment, wherein complainant disclosed particulars. While cross-examining PW.1 on Ex.P14, suggestions are made about said document containing particulars of amount transfer by cheque to BKS Fruits. An admission is elicited that accused no.2 was owner of BKS Fruits. Suggestions about proceedings having been filed in collusion with PW.2 and 4 are denied. 12. In his deposition, Dr.Rafeeq Ahmad – PW.2 deposed about introducing accused to complainant, accused seeking financial assistance from complainant and about complainant making payment of Rs.12,50,000/- as stated by complainant and accused agreeing to return it with interest. Material elicitation in his cross-examination are admission about PW.2 having lent Rs.21,45,000/- to accused, but, not showing same in his Income Tax returns. Suggestion about PW.2 joining complainant and others in buying fruits in bulk and distributing them to poor during Ramzan are denied. Even suggestion that he along with his brother went to shop premises of accused and forcibly collected cheque and in collusion with complainant filed present proceedings are denied. 13. PW.3 – husband of complainant deposed about letting out house on lease for Rs.10,00,000/- and out of same, Rs.5,00,000/- being paid by complainant to accused. His cross- examination is suggesting ill-will between accused and PW.4, who was a Police Constable and about accused having filed complaint against him before his superior officers. Suggestion about PW.3 joining PWs.1 and 2 in making bulk purchase of fruits for distribution in Ramzan are denied. 14. PW.4 deposed that he was working as a Traffic Head Constable, that PW.2 was his brother and admit that he was a tenant under complainant. Suggestion about PW.3 joining PWs.1 and 2 in making bulk purchase of fruits for distribution in Ramzan are denied. 14. PW.4 deposed that he was working as a Traffic Head Constable, that PW.2 was his brother and admit that he was a tenant under complainant. Suggestion about collusion with complainant and filing of complaint is denied. Suggestion about cheque in question was forcibly taken from accused is denied. 15. On other hand, in his deposition, accused no.1 as DW.1 stated that he had seen complainant for first time in Court, that he had not approached complainant for money and that no money was borrowed. He also deposed about PW.2 stealing cheques from shop of accused and getting present proceedings filed. In cross-examination, specific admission is elicited that he along with his son was living in joint family and whether transaction was with himself or his son, he had received money. He admits that in BKS Fruits and Chats, he was managing fruits sale, while his son was managing juice and chats part. An admission is elicited that no complaint was filed on theft of cheques. He also admits that particulars of cheques stolen were not mentioned in reply. An admission is also elicited that Ex.P1 – cheque belonged to him and signature on it was his. An admission is also elicited that in reply, he had not denied knowing complainant. He admits pendency of another proceeding against him as per Exs.P10 to P13 filed by PW.2. 16. In his deposition, accused no.2 as DW.2 also denied contents of complaint as false. But, stated that PW.2 and complainant had purchased fruits in bulk for distribution to their community people and that he was neither be drawer nor signatory to Ex.P1 – cheque. In cross-examination, admission is elicited that on 16.03.2017 and 23.05.2017, Rs.6,00,000/- was credited to his account from complainant, but claims it to be towards payment for purchase of fruits. Admission is elicited that accused no.1 and 2 were facing other cheque bounce cases. 17. Above material would indicate accused taking contradictory defence insofar as Ex.P1 – cheque in question on one hand, it is claimed to have been stolen by PW.2 from their shop, but admitted that no complaint was filed and on other hand, claims that Ex.P1 was part of several cheques forcibly taken by PW.4. 17. Above material would indicate accused taking contradictory defence insofar as Ex.P1 – cheque in question on one hand, it is claimed to have been stolen by PW.2 from their shop, but admitted that no complaint was filed and on other hand, claims that Ex.P1 was part of several cheques forcibly taken by PW.4. Simultaneously, it is sought to be contended that payment admitted to be received from complainant was towards purchase of fruits in bulk for distribution amongst poor Muslims during Ramzan. However, it is seen that none of said defences are substantiated or probabilized. At same time, specific contention is sought to be urged by accused no.1 that his conviction was erroneous, since complainant admitted that payment was made to BKS Fruits and Chats owned by accused no.2, who was acquitted by Appellate Court. 18. PW.1 admits that admission is elicited about income of complainant and her husband and contention that payments were made towards purchase of fruits would dilute said defence. Reliance on admission by PW.1 about accused no.2 being owner of BKS Fruits would be of little or no consequence, as DW.1 admitted he had received entire money. Apart from above, PW.1 admitted Ex.P1 belonged to him and had his signature, which would provide sufficient basis for his conviction. 19. Though, revision petition filed under Section 397 of CrPC, would not require re-appreciation of evidence, in view of above examination was to dispel vehement contention that accused no.1 was convicted for debt of accused no.2, who was acquitted in deference to tenet that a legal system would tolerate 100 guilty persons being acquitted than an innocent being convicted. 20. It is also seen, in light of above facts, decisions relied upon would not be of any assistance to accused. 21. For aforesaid reason, it is concluded that impugned judgments are based on consideration of entire material on record and conclusions arrived are in accordance with law. No ground for interference made out. Revision petition is dismissed.