ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.979/2016 by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 04.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.34328/2014 by the XIII 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) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months 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 is that the respondent-complainant and the petitioner are known to each other since several years. The accused was facing financial problems and as such he approached the complainant and requested to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) as hand loan to meet his financial problems. The complainant has advanced a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) by way of cash on 24.10.2008. At the time of borrowing said loan, the accused had assured that he will repay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. within two years from the date of borrowing. The petitioner-accused executed On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt on 24.12.2008 for Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only) in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused has paid interest on the principal amount till December-2010 and thereafter, he has not paid principal amount nor interest amount. Thereafter, the accused has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July-2012 towards part payment of principal amount. The accused has issued two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each both dated 07.08.2014 bearing Nos. 031071 and 031069 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The complainant presented those two cheques for encashment and they returned with an endorsement as “funds insufficient” on 09.08.2014. The complainant intimated regarding dishonour of cheques to the accused. The petitioner –accused requested the complainant to present said cheques again after one month. The complainant presented said cheques again on 18.09.2014 and said cheques came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “account closed”. The complainant intimated regarding dishonour of cheques to the accused. The petitioner –accused requested the complainant to present said cheques again after one month. The complainant presented said cheques again on 18.09.2014 and said cheques came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “account closed”. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 16.10.2014 by RPAD calling upon the petitioner -accused to pay cheques amount. The said notice has been served on the petitioner –accused on 17.10.2014. The petitioner –accused has not paid amount of cheques, 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 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P9. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner -accused has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked one document as Ex.D1. 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.3,00,000/- (rupees Three Lakhs only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.979/2016. 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 as per complaint the date of borrowing is 24.12.2008, execution of on Demand Promissory Note is 24.08.2008 and cheques are dated 07.08.2014. As on the date of cheques –Ex.P1 and P2, the debt has become barred by limitation. Therefore, there is no legally enforceable debt. He further submits that the respondent - complainant has not produced any documents regarding accused making part payment of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during month of July-2012. He further contended that the petitioner –accused has taken up his defence that he borrowed Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) and he repaid the same on 22.12.2009 when he en-cashed the cheque of Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees Twelve Lakhs only) given to him by Sri K. Narayana. He further submits that the said amount borrowed is repaid in the presence of Sri K. Narayana. He further submits that the said amount borrowed is repaid in the presence of Sri K. Narayana. Without considering 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 erred in affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. With these, he prays to allow the 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 –accused has borrowed Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) on 24.12.2008 and on the same day he executed On Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt as per Ex.P7 and P8 respectively. The petitioner –accused has not denied the borrowing of Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) from the respondent –complainant. The defence of the petitioner –accused is that he has repaid entire amount borrowed on 22.12.2009 and cheques –Ex.P1 and P2 are issued as security to the complainant at the time of borrowing of Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as on the date of cheques –Ex.P1 and P2 i.e., 07.08.2014, the amount borrowed i.e., 24.12.2018 under Demand Promissory Note –Ex.P7 is barred by limitation. It is specific case of the respondent –complainant that during the month of July -2012 the petitioner –accused has repaid principal amount of Rs.75,000/-(rupees Seventy Five Thousand only). The said aspect of repayment of Rs.75,000/-(rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July -2012 has been stated in the legal notice –Ex.P4, in the averments of the complaint and in the chief examination of P.W.1 and the said aspect has not been denied in the cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the said evidence of part payment of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July - 2017 is remained unchallenged. Even the accused who has been examined as D.W.1 has not stated anything in the chief examination denying part payment of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July -2012. Therefore, the said evidence of part payment of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July - 2017 is remained unchallenged. Even the accused who has been examined as D.W.1 has not stated anything in the chief examination denying part payment of Rs.75,000/- (rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) during the month of July -2012. The Appellate Court considered the said aspect and held that as there is part payment during the month of July -2022 it extents limitation period and therefore, as on the date of cheques –Ex.P1 and P2, the debt is not barred by limitation. 9. Other defence put forth by the petitioner-accused is that he repaid the amount borrowed on 22.12.2009 in the presence of Sri K.Narayana has remained mere contention. In order to prove the said defence, the petitioner –accused has not examined the said K.Narayana in whose presence he alleged to have made payment of amount borrowed. Therefore, the petitioner –accused has failed to establish that he has repaid the entire amount borrowed and cheques –Ex.P1 and P2 given as security at the time of borrowing has been misused by the respondent –complainant. 10. Considering all these aspects, learned Magistrate has rightly convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Appellate Court has rightly re -appreciated evidence on record and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.