ORDER : (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.) 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 674/2014 by LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2017 passed in C.C. No. 21647/2016 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’) has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – accused. Learned counsel for respondent remained absent and has not addressed arguments. 3. Case of the respondent – complainant was that the petitioner – accused had availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner – accused, in order to repay the amount borrowed, had issued post dated cheque in the month of April, 2016, bearing No. 006156 dated 17.06.2016 for repayment of the amount borrowed. The respondent - complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for the reason `account closed’. The respondent - complainant got issued legal notice dated 16.07.2016 to the petitioner - accused calling upon her to pay the cheque amount. Said notice has been served on the petitioner - accused. The petitioner - accused has sent reply dated 23.08.2016. As the cheque amount has not been paid within 15 days, the respondent - complainant initiated proceedings against the petitioner - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent – complainant, in order to prove her case, has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7. Statement of the petitioner - accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent - complainant filed her statement in writing under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner - accused has examined one Sri. Sai Mohan as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17. The trial Court, after hearing arguments on both sides has passed judgment dated 01.04.2017 convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act sentencing her to pay fine of Rs.5,05,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year. Said judgment of conviction had been challenged by the petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 674/2017. Said appeal came to be dismissed on merits confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 4. Said judgment of conviction had been challenged by the petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 674/2017. Said appeal came to be dismissed on merits confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the petitioner had taken up the defence that there were financial transactions between the petitioner - accused, Sri. Sai Mohan (D.W.1) and parents of respondent – complainant, namely, Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma. 3 cheques had been given as security for the said financial transaction and one of the cheque has been misused by the parents of the respondent - complainant through the complainant. He submits that the defence has been taken in reply notice – Ex.P.7. D.W.1 – Sri. Sai Mohan has stated in detail regarding the financial transaction between him, the petitioner and Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma – parents of complainant. He submits that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17 are documents which establish that there was financial transaction between the petitioner - accused, Sri. Sai Mohan and parents of respondent - complainant. He submits that petitioner and Sri. Sai Mohan had filed joint complaint against the parents of respondent - complainant on 05.04.2016 to the Police wherein there is a narration of giving 5 blank cheques by Sri. Sai Mohan and 3 blank signed cheques by petitioner - accused as security to the parents of respondent - complainant. The Police held enquiry on the said complaint – Ex.D.12 and issued endorsement Ex.D.16. The petitioner - accused has explained her defence in the statement filed in writing under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. The respondent - complainant has not chosen to call this petitioner - accused for cross-examination. He further submits that the petitioner - accused even though is a lady has been referred to as a male person in legal notice, in the complaint and in the evidence affidavit and that itself indicate that father of the respondent - complainant has approached the counsel, which establishes the defence of the petitioner – accused. The petitioner - accused has also filed her arguments in writing but the trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the same. There is no suggestion to D.W.1 that cheque has been issued by the petitioner - accused in favour of the respondent - complainant for discharge of the debt. The petitioner - accused has also filed her arguments in writing but the trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the same. There is no suggestion to D.W.1 that cheque has been issued by the petitioner - accused in favour of the respondent - complainant for discharge of the debt. The parents of the respondent - complainant are the best witnesses and they have not been examined. Even though in the averments of the legal notice and complaint there is mention regarding interest at 24% per annum on the amount borrowed but the respondent – complainant has not demanded payment of interest amount in the legal notice and cheque is for the amount borrowed. In the complaint, legal notice and evidence affidavit there is no mention of whether interest is paid or not. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner - accused has rebutted the presumption raised under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As the presumption is rebutted it is for the respondent - complainant to prove the transaction of borrowing and issuance of cheque for discharge of the said debt. The respondent - complainant has not placed any material on record to establish the said borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner - accused. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner - accused and the appellate Court has erred in confirming the said judgment of conviction. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 6. The petitioner - accused has admitted her signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1. As the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption has been drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of the debt. Said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Standard of proof of rebutting the said presumption is preponderance of probability. 7. The petitioner - accused has taken up the defence in her reply notice – Ex.P.7 that petitioner - accused is not known to the respondent - complainant and she and Sri. Sai Mohan had financial transaction with Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma during the year 2012 and the petitioner - accused had issued 3 blank signed cheques as security to the said transaction. Said defence which is put to P.W.1 – complainant has been denied by her. Sai Mohan had financial transaction with Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma during the year 2012 and the petitioner - accused had issued 3 blank signed cheques as security to the said transaction. Said defence which is put to P.W.1 – complainant has been denied by her. The petitioner – accused, in order to prove the said defence, has examined one Sri. Sai Mohan as D.W.1 and he has stated that he had financial transaction with Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma, he had given 5 blank cheques to them and the petitioner - accused had also transaction with them and she had given 3 blank signed cheques as security to Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma. Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3 – account ledger book of the firm of Sri. Sai Mohan contains entries with regard to the said transaction of Sri. Sai Mohan with Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma – parents of the respondent - complainant. Ex.D.10 is the Bank passbook of the petitioner - accused and there are entries dated 04.12.2015 and 05.05.2015 regarding payment by the petitioner - accused to Smt. Premamma through cheques. Said documents establish that there were financial transactions between the petitioner, Sri. Sai Mohan and Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma – parents of respondent - complainant. 8. As per the averments of the complaint the date of borrowing is 22.12.2015 and cheque has been issued during April, 2016 which is post dated cheque bearing date - 17.06.2016. Ex.D.12 is the complaint given by the petitioner - accused and D.W.1 against Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma – parents of respondent - complainant and it is filed on 05.04.2016. It is filed prior to the date of cheque and cheque date is 17.06.2016. In Ex.D.12 there is a specific mention that Sri. Sai Mohan had issued 5 blank cheques and petitioner - accused had issued 3 blank signed cheques of her account with HDFC Bank as security for the amount borrowed by her from the parents of respondent – complainant and she has repaid the said loan amount. Presenting of the said cheque by the respondent - complainant is subsequent to the complaint – Ex.D.12 dated 05.04.2016. Ex.D.16 is the endorsement issued by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police dated 06.05.2016 which indicate that on the complaint of Sri. Sai Mohan and petitioner - accused Police have secured Sri. Presenting of the said cheque by the respondent - complainant is subsequent to the complaint – Ex.D.12 dated 05.04.2016. Ex.D.16 is the endorsement issued by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police dated 06.05.2016 which indicate that on the complaint of Sri. Sai Mohan and petitioner - accused Police have secured Sri. Ramachandrappa and Smt. Premamma – parents of the respondent – complainant, enquired them, warned them not to make galata and directed to approach Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Presenting of the cheque – Ex.P.1 subsequent to Ex.D.12 and Ex.D.16 itself indicate that the cheque given by the petitioner - accused to the parents of respondent - complainant has been misused by them through their daughter, that is, the complainant. 9. The respondent - complainant has been described as a male person in notice – Ex.P.3, complaint – Ex.P.1 and even in her affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief. Said aspect indicates that a male person had approached the counsel to issue notice of dishonour of cheque. Said male person might be the father of the complainant – that is, Sri. Ramachandrappa. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner has rebutted the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. As presumption has been rebutted, the complainant has to establish that the petitioner - accused had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/-. In order to establish the said aspect respondent - complainant has not placed any documents/evidence. Therefore, the respondent - complainant has failed to prove that the petitioner - accused had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- and issued cheque – Ex.P.1 for discharge of the said debt. Without considering all these aspects the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the evidence on record. Considering all these aspects, the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court require to be set aside and the petitioner - accused is requires to be acquitted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 10. In the result, the following; ORDER : i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2017 passed in C.C. No. 21647/2016 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentence therein is set aside. iii. 10. In the result, the following; ORDER : i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2017 passed in C.C. No. 21647/2016 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, convicting the petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentence therein is set aside. iii. Judgment passed by the appellate Court dated 20.12.2017 in Crl.A. No. 674/2017 by LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is also set aside. iv. The petitioner - accused stands acquitted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. v. Amount deposited by the petitioner - accused before the trial Court is ordered to be released to the petitioner - accused.