ORDER : 1. Sri KA Chandrashekar, learned counsel for petitioners (accused) in all these matters, submitted that revision petitions were against concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( 'NI Act ' for short) as follows: 2. It was submitted, Revision petitions arose out of similar facts and circumstances and that challenge was on similar grounds. Therefore reference would be made to particular facts in Crl.R.P.no.1523/2023 only for sake of convenience. 3. It was submitted, present proceedings arose out of a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’ for short) alleging that accused Firm was due to complainant a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and for discharge of same, issued cheque bearing no.122968 dated 30.03.2015 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Tipturu Branch, which when presented returned dishonored with endorsement ‘funds insufficient' on 12.04.2015 and thereafter, demand notice dated 23.04.2015 got issued by complainant returned with postal shara 'addressee absent for seven days' and accused failed to repay cheque amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial, wherein, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false, which was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. Accused did not lead defence evidence. It was submitted, accused had raised several defences and substantiated same in cross-examination of complainant, but trial Court convicted accused without appreciation of entire material. Even appeal filed against same was dismissed without proper re- appreciation, leading to this revision. Thus, impugned judgments suffered from perversity calling for interference. 5. It was submitted, accused had denied having any financial transactions with complainant and consequently contended that cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, complainant had failed to disclose even minimum particulars such as date, time and place of lending to accused, which would be a material omission, when accused had denied any transaction with complainant. It was submitted, in cross-examination complainant examined as PW.1 admitted that there was no agreement for payment of interest on amount lent. It was submitted, complainant had failed to disclose even minimum particulars such as date, time and place of lending to accused, which would be a material omission, when accused had denied any transaction with complainant. It was submitted, in cross-examination complainant examined as PW.1 admitted that there was no agreement for payment of interest on amount lent. Despite same, while passing impugned judgment, trial Court had directed return of cheque amount with 12% interest p.a., which would be contrary to law. 6. It was submitted, while above contentions were common to all revision petitions, there were specific additional contentions insofar as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023 only, namely that in cross-examination, PW.1 - complainant admitted that only accused no.1 had come for borrowing money and that Accused no.2 was not a signatory to cheques in question. Therefore, arraignment of Accused no.2 was challenged relying on ratio laid down in following decisions: (i) Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 71 (ii) Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1740 (iii) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda , (2024) 15 SCC 443 (iv) Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2024) 12 SCC 131 (v) Smt. Veenashri v. Sri Shankar , 2022 KHC 35359 (vi) Parveen Kumar v. Devki Nandan Jain , AIR OnLine 2021 Kar 2777 7. On above grounds, learned counsel prayed for allowing revision petitions. 8. On other hand, Sri Vinod Reddy V., learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petitions. It was submitted, both Courts on consideration of entire material on record had arrived at reasoned conclusions which were in accordance with law. Therefore, there was no scope for interference and on said ground sought for dismissal of petitions. 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments and record. 10. These revision petitions are by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting them for offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on ground of perversity. Contentions required to be considered herein are firstly, whether conviction of accused would require to be set-aside on account of failure to disclose particulars of lending money by complainant and secondly, legality of imposition of 12% interest on cheque amount in all revision petitions and insofar as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023, third contention about illegal arraignment and conviction of accused no.2. 11. 11. Insofar as first contention, perusal of records in C.C.no.1757/2015, indeed reveal that complainant omitted to state date, time and place of lending money to accused in complaint, demand notice as well as in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, admission about above omission is elicited. At same time, Ex.P5 - postal cover containing Ex.P3 - demand notice returned with shara 'addressee absent upto seven days, return to sender', substantiating deemed service. And since there is no reply, inference has to be drawn against accused. PW.1 stated that amount lent was mentioned in his Income Tax return of year 2014, but, did not produce same, even after admitting that same could secured from IT Authorities and produced. But, suggestions made by accused that cheques in question were not issued towards debt alleged and that they were given as security for loan of Rs.10 Lakhs borrowed in year 2012, which was cleared, would dilute defence denying borrowal. Even subsequent admission elicited that accused no.2 had not accompanied accused no.1 while borrowing amount, would also same effect. 12. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court noted presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and consequence of same casting onus on to accused. It noted defence adopted that cheque was given as security for earlier loan would support statutory presumptions. It notes failure of accused to substantiate issuance of Ex.P1 was as security for earlier loan, leading to conclusion about failure to upset statutory presumptions. Based on said conclusion, it convicted accused. 13. While passing impugned judgment, Appellate Court relied on ratio laid down in P. Rasiya v. Abdul Nazer , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131, for proposition that once complainant established that cheque was issued by accused and his signature was admitted, onus would shift on accused to prove contrary. It noted there was failure of accused to produce any material to establish about earlier loan and issuance of cheque 0as security for said loan. It therefore upheld conviction of accused. 14. In view of ratio in P. Rasiya 's case (supra), when there is admission by accused of his signature on cheque and issuance of cheque to complainant, failure to state particulars of lending would not be fatal, finding of both Courts on first question would be justified. 15. It therefore upheld conviction of accused. 14. In view of ratio in P. Rasiya 's case (supra), when there is admission by accused of his signature on cheque and issuance of cheque to complainant, failure to state particulars of lending would not be fatal, finding of both Courts on first question would be justified. 15. Next contention regarding imposition of 12% on cheque amount as part of sentence being contrary to statute, it is seen that provisions of Section 138 of NI Act provide for maximum sentence of imprisonment for period of two years or with fine of upto twice cheque amount or with both. It is settled law that while passing orders of sentence in case of conviction under NI Act, Courts would require to take note of need for recompense of loss sustained by complainant due to dishonor of cheque and time spent in litigation. Though sentence would be within statutory maximum, due to proceedings dilating until now, calculation of interest awarded until now is taken into account, same may exceed statutory limit. Therefore, revision petitions succeed to this extent. 16. Insofar as third contentions, admission elicited about accused no.2 not being signatory to cheque as well as admission that she had not come to complainant at time of borrowal of money would lend credence to challenge conviction of accused no.2. Therefore, insofar as Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023, Revision Petition by accused no.2 would succeed. 17. In view of above conclusions, Revision Petitions are allowed in part , only insofar as sentence modifying it in all revision petitions to fine amount equal to twice cheque amount; and setting aside order of conviction of accused no.2 in Crl.R.P.no.1493/2023 and Crl.R.P.no.1521/2023. It is clarified that impugned judgments are confirmed in all other respects.