ORDER : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.2227/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kannur and he is the appellant in Crl.A No.101/2012 of Sessions Court, Thalassery. He was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I Act). Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision petition. 2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused. 3. The complainant-the 'Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopanasamithi', Kannur District Committee, represented by its President laid the complaint stating that the accused, who is a member of the said association, availed a financial facility of Rs.3 lakhs from its mutual benefit fund scheme and in discharge of the amount due in the said transaction, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant. Though the complainant presented Ext.P1 cheque for collection, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. In spite of receipt of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act’). 4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and denied issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of any debt or liability. 5. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined on the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.101/2012 was dismissed by the Sessions Court confirming the conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The substantive sentence of four months of imprisonment awarded by the trial court was modified by the appellate court to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The direction by the trial to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. was confirmed in appeal. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court. Undisputably Ext.P1 is a cheque issued from the account maintained by the accused at North Malabar Gramin Bank, Kuthuparamba Branch. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court. Undisputably Ext.P1 is a cheque issued from the account maintained by the accused at North Malabar Gramin Bank, Kuthuparamba Branch. According to PW1, who is the District President of the complainant association, accused who was a member of the said association and who was a subscriber of the mutual benefit fund scheme of the complainant association had availed a financial assistance of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant association. Ext.P8 is the loan application and Ext.P9 is the bond executed by the accused. Further version of PW1 is that the accused committed default in repaying the installments and an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was due from the accused in the said transaction. The specific version of PW1 is that towards the said liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.2,40,000/- drawn on North Malabar Gramin Bank, Kuthuparamba Branch. When Ext.P1 cheque was presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Exts.P2 and P3 are the memos issued from the bank. The complainant caused to send Ext.P4 lawyer notice to the accused and the accused accepted the notice. Ext.P6 is the acknowledgment card. According to PW1, in spite of receipt of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused neither sent any reply nor paid the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque. 8. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that since the complainant failed to produce the accounts relating to the alleged financial transaction, the case of the complainant has to be disbelieved, is untenable. It is to be borne in mind that inspite of receipt of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused did not send any reply. If the accused had any dispute regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque and the liability, he could have send a reply. He has no explanation at all for not sending any reply. Though the accused would contend that the signature in Ext.P9 document is not his signature, he failed to establish the same. Curiously enough, accused has not disputed his signature in Ext.P1 cheque and that there is absolutely no explanation by the accused as to how Ext.P1 cheque signed by him reached at the hands of the complainant. Accused has no case that he lost the said cheque leaf or it was stolen. Curiously enough, accused has not disputed his signature in Ext.P1 cheque and that there is absolutely no explanation by the accused as to how Ext.P1 cheque signed by him reached at the hands of the complainant. Accused has no case that he lost the said cheque leaf or it was stolen. He has also no case that Ext.P1 cheque was obtained by the complainant association under fraud or coercion. Accused has also no case that it was given as security for any other transaction with the complainant. The suggestion put to PW1 during the cross-examination that the amount due to the complainant association was repaid by him fortifies the case of the complainant that accused had availed financial aid from the complainant association and it was in discharge of the amount due in the said transaction, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. 9. Section 118(a) of the N.I Act provides that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. 10. Section 139 of the N.I Act explicitly provides that unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 11. In Rengappa v. Sri.Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 , the Apex Court held that the presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exist a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The Apex Court further held that the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities. It was also held that in view of Section 139 of N.I Act there is an initial presumption, which favours the complainant. 12. The presumption under Section 139 N.I Act entails an obligation on the court to presume that the cheque in question was issued by the drawer or accused in discharge of a debt or liability. It is a rebuttable presumption. Accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. 12. The presumption under Section 139 N.I Act entails an obligation on the court to presume that the cheque in question was issued by the drawer or accused in discharge of a debt or liability. It is a rebuttable presumption. Accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. Per contra, the complainant has succeeded in establishing that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of his liability to pay the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- due to the complainant association. 13. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the finding rendered by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The sentence against the accused as modified by the appellate court in Crl.A No.101/2012 also do not warrant any interference by this Court. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.