ORDER : (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.752/2012 by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 22.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.2479/2008 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act for brevity) has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court was that the complainant is dealer in tissue paper and paper products under the name and style as M/s S.R Agency. The accused is businessman and Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and Managing Director of accused No.1 –Company. The accused purchased the paper products from the complainant worth Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) under the Invoice No.126 dated 28.02.2007 on credit basis. As per request of the accused, invoice was raised in the name of accused proprietorship firm and accused No.2 has issued cheque for Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) dated 16.03.2007 to pay invoice amount. The complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for a reason “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued statutory demand notice to the accused. Accused has sent reply dated 16.06.2007 acknowledging the liability and also receipt of notice. As accused has not paid the cheque amount, the respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner –complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The complainant has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and not produced any documents. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both side and appreciating evidence on record has convicted the petitioner –accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.752/2012. The appeal came to be dismissed on merits and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.752/2012. The appeal came to be dismissed on merits and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ex.P3 -Tax Invoice is drawn on M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and it is dated 28.02.2007 for Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only). Cheque –Ex.P4 is not issued by the M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. He further submits that there was financial transaction between accused No.2 and father of the respondent –complainant and cheque – Ex.P4 has been issued as security for the transaction. He further submits that the petitioner –accused denied supply of materials to M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., or M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. He further submits that Ex.P12 stated to be letter dated 06.09.2007 issued by the petitioner –accused is created one. He further submits that notice has not been served on the petitioner – accused. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner –accused and learned Sessions Judge failed to re-appreciate evidence on record and affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. 7. It is case of the respondent –complainant that good worth Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) have been purchased by accused No.2 from the complainant on credit basis under Invoice No.126 dated 28.02.2007 and taken delivery of the same. In order to make payment of amount of said tax invoice, cheque –Ex.P4 has been issued by the petitioner –accused on his company name i.e., M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd,. Ex.P3 –tax invoice drawn in the name of the M/s Kleanwell Paper Products dated 28.02.2007 for Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) and on that invoice there is round seal of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products with signature. Cheque –Ex.P4 has been issued by Managing Director of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner –accused is the Managing Director of said M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd,. Cheque –Ex.P4 has been issued by Managing Director of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner –accused is the Managing Director of said M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd,. The petitioner –accused has taken up defence that no materials were supplied to him under invoice –Ex.P3 and cheque –Ex.P4 is issued by him to the father of the complainant as security for some other transaction has been misused by the respondent –complainant. Considering the same, the petitioner –accused has admitted his signature on the cheque –Ex.P4. As signature on cheque –Ex.P4 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 or other liability. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner –accused is Managing Director of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and the Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. After dishonour of the said cheque –Ex.P4 for want funds in the account, the notice as per Ex.P6 has been issued to M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and also M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., represented by Sri M. Ramesh. The said legal notice –Exs.P6 has been served on both M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Kleanwell Paper Products as per Ex.P9 and 10 – postal acknowledgments respectively. There are seals on these two postal acknowledgements. Ex.P9 –postal acknowledgment contains seal of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and Ex.P10 –postal acknowledgment contains seal of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. Inspite of service of these two notices, the petitioner –M. Ramesh who is Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and the Managing Director of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., has not given any reply to the said legal notice. 9. The defence taken up by the petitioner – accused that he has issued Ex.P4 –cheque to the father of the respondent –complainant as security for some other transaction is put to P.W.1 in his cross examination and he has denied the same. The seal on Ex.P3 –tax invoice of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products itself indicate that goods mentioned in it have been delivered to the petitioner – accused. The Ex.P4 cheque amount and Ex.P3 –tax invoice amount are same i.e., Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only). 10. On perusal of evidence of D.W.1 it is clear that the defence set up has not been established. The Ex.P4 cheque amount and Ex.P3 –tax invoice amount are same i.e., Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only). 10. On perusal of evidence of D.W.1 it is clear that the defence set up has not been established. D.W.1 has admitted that he is Managing Director of M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. As defence set up by the petitioner –accused is not established, the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that the cheque – Ex.P4 is issued for discharge of liability remained unrebutted. 11. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Appellate Court has right re-appreciated evidence on record and affirmed the conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial Court. There are no grounds to allow this Criminal Revision Petition. 12. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.