ORDER : (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.) 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2017 passed in Crl.A. No. 118/2016 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru whereunder the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed in C.C. No. 177/2012 by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kadur convicting the petitioner - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I. Act’) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.1,45,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner – accused and learned counsel for respondent – complainant. 3. It is the case of respondent - complainant that he and accused were known to each other. Petitioner - accused had availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent - complainant for financial assistance to discharge the hand loan availed by him for purchase of landed properties. Towards repayment of the same, he had issued cheque dated 04.05.2011 bearing No. 566995 drawn on State Bank of India, Bharath Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent - complainant presented the said cheque for encashment and it came to be dishonoured for the reason `funds insufficient’. Respondent - complainant got issued legal notice on 14.10.2011 and the same has been served on petitioner - accused on 15.10.2011. Petitioner – accused, inspite of service of notice, has not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, respondent - complainant had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Respondent - complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Statement of petitioner - accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner - accused has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. The trial Court, after hearing arguments on both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, has convicted petitioner - accused for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Said judgment of conviction was challenged by petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 118/2016. Said appeal came to be dismissed on merits confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 4. Said judgment of conviction was challenged by petitioner - accused before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 118/2016. Said appeal came to be dismissed on merits confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner – accused would contend that respondent - complainant is a real estate agent and on his mediation petitioner - accused purchased property under sale deed – Ex.D.1 and regarding the same P.W.1 has admitted that he is one of the signatory to the said sale deed as a witness. He further submits that cheque has been issued as a security for payment of commission for the said sale transaction to the respondent - complainant and subsequently said amount has been paid by cash, but respondent - complainant has not returned the said cheque and he has misused the same. He further submits that petitioner - accused has filed a complaint against respondent - complainant and others and FIR is registered against him. Petitioner – accused, in order to prove his defence, has also let in evidence and stated his defence in his chief-examination. Without considering all these aspects learned Magistrate has erred in convicting petitioner - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Appellate Court has erred in confirming said judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent - complainant would contend that the trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. He has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court and appellate Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned judgments and trial Court records. 7. It is the specific case of respondent - complainant that he has lent Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner - accused as hand loan for purchase of property and for making repayment of the same he has issued the cheque – Ex.P.1. Petitioner - accused who has been examined as D.W.1 has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1 and it is drawn on his bank account. Petitioner - accused has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1 and it is drawn on his bank account. Petitioner - accused who has been examined as D.W.1 has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1 and it is drawn on his bank account. Petitioner - accused has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1 and it is drawn on his bank account. As petitioner - accused has admitted his signature on the cheque – Ex.P.1 a presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of N.I. Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. Said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Stand of proof for rebutting the said presumption is that of preponderance of probability. 8. Petitioner - accused even after service of notice issued by respondent - complainant for dishonour of cheque has not got issued any reply putting forth his defence. Petitioner - accused has taken up the defence in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that there was a sale transaction as per sale deed (Ex.D.1) and for the said sale, respondent - complainant and one Sri. Mahesh were mediators. Respondent - complainant has admitted that he is one of the signatory to Ex.D.1 – sale deed as a witness. P.W.1 has denied that cheque is issued as a security towards payment of his commission and petitioner - accused has paid commission of Rs.50,000/- in cash to him. D.W.1 has stated his defence in his chief examination and it has been denied by respondent - complainant in the cross-examination. Petitioner - accused has not let in other evidence to establish that he has paid commission of Rs.50,000/- to respondent - complainant by cash and he has sought for return of cheque given as security for payment of commission amount. D.W.1 has also admitted that - complaint filed by him against respondent - complainant and others has been stated to be false by the Police report. Considering all these aspects petitioner - accused has failed to establish his defence and failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 139 of N.I. Act. As the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption, respondent - complainant need not prove the transaction. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalamani tex and Another Vs. P Balasubramanian, reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 has held as under: “13. As the petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption, respondent - complainant need not prove the transaction. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 807 has held as under: “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. 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. 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. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds made out to set aside the impugned judgments and acquit the petitioner - accused. 12. In the result, petition is dismissed.