ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. Petitioner is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.51457/2013 by the Court of LVII ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, dated 01.06.2018 and the judgment and order dated 01.01.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.25109/2018 by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent-Company had initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in CC.No.51457/2013 before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Bengaluru. In the said proceedings, in response to the summons received, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant, in order to prove its case, had examined one Mr.Raghu H.V., as P.W.1 and had got marked seven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. In support of defence, petitioner had examined himself as D.W.1. However, no documents were got marked on behalf of the defence. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.25109/2018, which was dismissed by the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) by judgment and order dated 01.01.2022. It is under these circumstances petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds in the petition submits that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the complainant had not made out a prima facie case and no documents were produced to show that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the complainant- Company. He submits that cheque in question was handed over to the husband of the Managing Director of the Company who was the friend of the petitioner. The said cheque was misused and a false claim has been made against the petitioner. The defence taken by the petitioner has not been appreciated properly by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. The said cheque was misused and a false claim has been made against the petitioner. The defence taken by the petitioner has not been appreciated properly by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. It is the case of the complainant-Company that petitioner had purchased unsold garments, dress materials and fixtures from the complainant-Company under slump sale for a total sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, for which, two separate invoices were raised for a sum of Rs.2,25,750/- and Rs.4,24,250/-. Towards discharge of the aforesaid liability, petitioner had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque on presentation for realization was dishonored by the drawee Bank and thereafter, the complainant had got issued a legal notice to the accused, which was duly served on him on 28.01.2013. Since, the petitioner-accused had failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question, in spite of service of statutory notice, the complainant had initiated proceeding against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. In support of the complainant's case, it’s authorized signatory Mr.Raghu H.V., was examined as P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the copy of Board Resolution of the respondent-Company authorizing P.W.1 to represent the Company and prosecute the complaint on its behalf. Ex.P.2 is the cheque in question, Ex.P.3 is the bank return memo, Ex.P.4 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.P.5 is the postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the two tax invoices for a sum of Rs.2,25,750/- and Rs.4,24,250/- respectively. The petitioner-accused has taken a specific defence that there is no transaction between him and the complainant-Company and on the other hand, husband of the Managing Director of the complainant namely Wilson was his friend and said Wilson intended to sell his property and he had furnished a set of papers belonging to his property to the petitioner for verification. The petitioner-accused has taken a specific defence that there is no transaction between him and the complainant-Company and on the other hand, husband of the Managing Director of the complainant namely Wilson was his friend and said Wilson intended to sell his property and he had furnished a set of papers belonging to his property to the petitioner for verification. Subsequently, the papers were handed over to said Wilson and as per the demand made by said Wilson, a blank cheque signed by the petitioner was issued to him, which was allegedly misused by the respondent-Company. Except taking a defence to the said effect and filing an affidavit to the said effect before the trial Court, petitioner has not produced any material to probabilize his defence, nor has he examined any other witness in support of his defence. 10. It is trite that the defence taken by the petitioner is required to be probabilized in order to rebut the presumption that arises against him as provided under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. In the present case, the cheque is issued by the petitioner from the bank account which is maintained by him in ICICI Bank. The signature found in the cheque is not in dispute. Therefore, presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises against the petitioner and unless the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Beena Vs., Muniyappan and Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 2895 has held that burden of proving that the cheque was not issued for any debt or liability is on the accused and mere denial that the cheque was not issued for discharge of liability is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof on the complainant. Accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability, failing which, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. For the purpose of rebutting the presumption that arises against the accused as provided under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is required to put forward a probable defence and place necessary material before the Court. 12. For the purpose of rebutting the presumption that arises against the accused as provided under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused is required to put forward a probable defence and place necessary material before the Court. Rebuttal evidence does not mean a plausible explanation, but that explanation is to be established with cogent and satisfactory material. 13. In the present case, except the deposition of the petitioner, there is no other material in support of his defence. According to the petitioner, the cheque in question was issued to the husband of the Managing Director of the respondent-Company towards advance sale consideration for the purpose of purchase of property belonging to the husband of the Managing Director of the respondent-Company. If that is so, in normal circumstances, the cheque should have been drawn in the name of husband of the Managing Director of the respondent-Company, whereas in the present case, the cheque is drawn in the name of the respondent-Company. 14. The petitioner has not initiated any proceedings against the aforesaid Wilson for allegedly misusing the cheque given by him and no police complaint has been filed against the said Wilson by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner by the courts below cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. 15. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed Amount deposited by the petitioner, if any, either before this Court or before the court below is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant.