THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.387 OF 2003. DATED:20-08-2009. Between: Vijay Kumar Chakote …Petitioner-accused and 1.State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. …Respondents-complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.387 OF 2003. ORDER: This Criminal Revision case by the petitioner-sole accused under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 20-02-2002, in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002, on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, recorded by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide judgment, dated 19-02-2002, in C.C.No.210 of 2000. 2. The allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant towards hand loan and to discharge the said debt, he issued three cheques, one for Rs.1,00,000/- and other two cheques for Rs.50,000/- each. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ in the account maintained by the accused. After giving statutory legal notice, complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. The trial Court accepting the evidence of P.W.1, found the accused guilty and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 6. Mr.R.Gopi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that there was no supporting document to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of hand loan, that the initial burden is on the complainant to show that the cheques were issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt, that post-dated cheques were given as security in the year 1994 and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards hand loan and to discharge the said debt, he issued three cheques Exs.P1 to P3, that therefore, the initial burden placed on the complainant stands discharged, that the accused failed to show that the cheques in question were not given for leally enforceable debt or liability and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, proper and correct? 9. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in contending that the initial burden is on the complainant to show that the cheques were given for legally enforceable debt or liability. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 139 of the Act. The accused can discharge that burden by examining the witnesses or he can also show in the evidence of complainant’s witnesses. It is not in dispute that the complainant was doing coal business, whereas the accused was transporting agent. For about ten years, they had business transactions. P.W.1 has specifically stated that in the month of December, 1999, he gave hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on the promise made by the accused that the same would be refunded within one month, but he did not fulfill his promise. On pressure made by the complainant, the accused issued three cheques. There is nothing unusual for a person like P.W.1 to give hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to an agent because they were having business transactions for a period spread over to ten years. During that period of ten years, both maintained a good relationship. There is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to lending of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused towards hand loan. When the cheques were presented, they were returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. It is not in dispute that statutory legal notice was sent to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount, but he did not do so. 11. The case of the accused is that the cheques were not given for legally enforceable debt or liability, but they were given for a security purpose. Having taken a plea that the cheques were given for a security purpose, it is for the accused to prove the same, but no evidence was adduced to show in what connection the cheques were given as security. Similarly, nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 to infer that the cheques were given as security in the business transaction. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the cheques were given in the year 1994 cannot be accepted because the cheques were dated 29-02-2000. Under Section 118 of the Act, the presumption is that they were issued on that day. Therefore, the burden placed on the accused has not been discharged. Hence, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act can be drawn. If it is drawn, it shall be presumed that the cheques were given for legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, both the courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 20-02-2002, in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002, on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner-accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 20-08-2009. Hsd