ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.17/2017 by the IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Mandya where under the judgment of conviction of the petitioner dated 07.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.178/2013 by the I Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.7,20,000/- has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of respondent/complainant before the trial Court was that he and petitioner/accused were known to each other and petitioner/accused who was in need of money for his business borrowed Rs.3,60,000/- from respondent/complainant on 17.01.2013 agreeing to repay the same within two months. The petitioner/accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.702448 dated 22.03.2013 draw on HDFC Bank, Saraswathipuram Branch, Mysuru. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. The complainant got issued legal notice by RPAD. The said legal notice has been returned as “not claimed.” As the cheque amount was not paid, respondent/complainant initiated proceedings against petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 4. The complainant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. After hearing arguments, the learned Magistrate convicted petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the accused before the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.17/2017. The said appeal came to be dismissed on merits affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the cheque given to one Mahadevamma has been misused by her through this complainant. PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that he is acquainted with the said Mahadevamma. There is a suggestion to DW.1 that accused is in the habit of cheating Mahadevamma and others by borrowing and issuing cheques. He further submits that account has been closed long back and the same has not been considered by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that he is acquainted with the said Mahadevamma. There is a suggestion to DW.1 that accused is in the habit of cheating Mahadevamma and others by borrowing and issuing cheques. He further submits that account has been closed long back and the same has not been considered by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The petitioner/accused had no opportunity of giving reply to the legal notice as the said notice sent by RPAD was returned as “not claimed.” Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the appellate Court has affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the signature on the cheque - Ex.P1 has been admitted by petitioner/accused. As the signature is admitted, presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. The presumption has not been rebutted. The defence that the cheque is given to one Mahadevamma and she has misused the said cheque through this complainant has not been established. Considering the said aspect, learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record has rightly affirmed the said judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 8. It is the specific case of respondent/complainant that petitioner/accused has borrowed Rs.3,60,000/- on 17.01.2013 and agreed to repay the same within two months. It is the further case of the complainant that Ex.P1-cheque has been issued for making repayment of the amount borrowed. The signature on the cheque has been admitted by the petitioner/accused. As the signature is admitted, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is that of preponderance of probability. 9. The petitioner/accused has taken up the defence that he had borrowed money from one Mahadevamma and he has issued blank signed cheque to her and she has misused the same through this complainant. The said suggestion put to PW.1 has been denied by him except the fact that the said Mahadevamma is his relative. 10. 9. The petitioner/accused has taken up the defence that he had borrowed money from one Mahadevamma and he has issued blank signed cheque to her and she has misused the same through this complainant. The said suggestion put to PW.1 has been denied by him except the fact that the said Mahadevamma is his relative. 10. DW.1 in his chief-examination itself has stated that he has borrowed money from Mahadevamma, Dakshayini and Ramakrishna and issued signed cheque of HDFC Bank to them and the said borrowing is in the year 2011. The said fact itself indicates that even though the bank account is closed in the year 2007 as per Ex.D3, the cheques are issued to the said Mahadevamma and others are of HDFC Bank in the year 2011. The suggestion put to DW.1 is that petitioner/accused is in the habit of borrowing money for his petrol bank business and he is cheating people by giving cheques. The said suggestion itself does not prove the defence of the petitioner/accused that the cheque given to Mahadevamma has been misused by her through this complainant. Merely because there are entries of payment to Ramakrishna contained in Ex.D1 – bank statement account itself does not establish the defence of the petitioner/accused. Considering all these aspects petitioner/accused has failed to establish his defence and failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. As the presumption is not rebutted, it is not required for respondent/complainant to establish the transaction between him and the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807 has observed thus: “55. As rightly contended by the appellant, there is a fundamental flaw in the way both the Courts below have proceeded to appreciate the evidence on record. Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision in the case of Kalamani tex and Another vs. P Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 has held as under: “13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystalized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat in the following words: “18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the appellant- accused.” 12. Considering the above aspect, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as rendered by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court requires to be affirmed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence passed by the trial Court is on higher side as the fine is imposed double the amount of cheque apart from simple imprisonment for six months. The sentence imposed by the trial Court reads as under: “The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.7,20,000/- IDSI for 1 month. Acting u/Section 357(a) of Cr.PC., out of the fine amount Rs.4,24,800/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant.” 14. The trial Court apart from imposing simple imprisonment for six months has imposed fine of Rs.7,20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Even though the fine is Rs.7,20,000/-, the trial Court has ordered payment of compensation of Rs.4,24,800/-. No reasons are assigned by the trial Court for imposing the sentence of imprisonment and also fine and there is huge amount of gap in between the fine amount and the compensation awarded. The purpose and object of the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not to send the accused to prison but to get the amount of cheque recovered. Considering the said aspect, the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court requires to be set-aside. The fine imposed in a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- is also on higher side considering the compensation amount of Rs.4,24,800/-. Considering the said aspect if the fine of Rs.4,30,000/- is imposed, the same will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the following: ORDER (I) The revision petition is allowed in part. The fine imposed in a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- is also on higher side considering the compensation amount of Rs.4,24,800/-. Considering the said aspect if the fine of Rs.4,30,000/- is imposed, the same will meet the ends of justice. In the result, the following: ORDER (I) The revision petition is allowed in part. (II) The conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is affirmed. The sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified as under: (i) The petitioner/accused shall pay fine of Rs.4,30,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (ii) The order of payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.4,24,800/- shall remain undisturbed.