ORDER : (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.12.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.25016/2021 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 07.01.2024 passed in C.C.No.50077/2017 by the XXXIV 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 and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court is that the petitioner –accused is her friend and she has approached for financial help for her domestic purpose and promised to repay the same within 06 months. The complainant has lent amount of Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the petitioner –accused on 07.01.2016. The accused has issued post dated cheque bearing No.649814 dated 21.06.2016 for Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for a reason “funds insufficient” on 23.06.2016. The complainant got issued demand notice dated 04.07.2016 though RPAD and it has been served on the petitioner – accused on 08.07.2016. The petitioner –accused did not pay the cheque amount within 15 days. Therefore, the respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The respondent –complainant has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P5. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner – accused has not lead any defence evidence. 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 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.16,50,000/- (rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.25016/2021. The said 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 there are no transactions between the petitioner and respondent. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.25016/2021. The said 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 there are no transactions between the petitioner and respondent. Two cheques are given by the petitioner and her sister as security for saree purchase transaction by her mother from the complainant and said cheques have been misused by the respondent – complainant. He further submits that P.W.1 has admitted in her cross examination that there was transaction between mother of the petitioner and the respondent – complainant. That itself establish the defence of the petitioner –accused. He further submits that there is no capacity to the respondent –complainant to lend huge money of Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). Without considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has erred in convicting the petitioner – accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Appellate Court has failed to re – appreciate the evidence on record and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. With these, he prays to allow the Criminal Revision Petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. 7. It is specific case of the respondent –  complainant that the petitioner has borrowed amount of Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from her on 07.01.2016 and in order to repay the amount borrowed has issued cheque for Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) dated 21.06.2016. The issuance of cheque has not been disputed by the petitioner –accused. As issuance of cheques is not disputed, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that 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. 8. The petitioner –accused has not issued any reply to the legal notice got issued by the respondent – complainant, even though the notice has been served on her. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The standard of proof for rebutting the said presumption is that of preponderance of probability. 8. The petitioner –accused has not issued any reply to the legal notice got issued by the respondent – complainant, even though the notice has been served on her. The defence of the petitioner –accused is that her mother has purchased saree from the respondent – complainant and for the said transaction, the petitioner and her sister have issued cheques as security and they have been misused by the respondent. Even though P.W.1 has admitted that the mother of the petitioner has purchased saree but has denied the suggestion that cheques are issued by the petitioner and her sister as security for saree purchase by her mother. The petitioner –accused has not entered into witness box nor she has examined her mother. The petitioner has not proved her defence. Therefore, the presumption drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act has remained unrebutted. As presumption is remained unrebutted, there is no need to the respondent –complainant to prove the transaction. 9. The Honble 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. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. Considering above aspects, learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence on record and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. There are no grounds to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition. 11. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.