IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1399 OF 2010 Between: M. Ramchander Rao … PETITIONER And B. Rama Raju and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (SR) No.23959 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the accused against concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding that the petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act). There is no dispute about Ex.P-1 - cheque containing signature of the accused. According to the respondent No.1/complainant, he gave hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner on 08.10.2005 and obtained Ex.P-7 - Promissory Note therefor and that the petitioner agreed to repay the said sum with interest at 18% per annum and that the petitioner issued Ex.P-1 - cheque for Rs.1,85,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 on his bank account towards discharge of the promissory note debt. When presented for encashment, Ex.P-1 - cheque was dishonoured and it is evident from Exs.P-2 and P-3, memos issued by the bank. After issuing Ex.P-4 - Statutory Notice, the respondent No.1 filed private complaint before the Magistrate alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In Ex.P-8 - reply of the accused, the petitioner contends inter alia that when he left the cheque in his cabin, his colleague, who is relation of the complainant took away the cheque and handed it over to the complainant and that making use of the said lost cheque, the complainant filed the case. The complainant apart from examining himself as PW.1, examined PWs.2 and 3 in support of his lending and the accused giving Ex.P-1 - cheque in discharge of the promissory note debt. The accused did not choose to examine himself as a witness to rebut the presumption contained under Section 139 of the Act with regard to Ex.P-1 - cheque being supported by legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts below disbelieved version of the accused rightly and came to the conclusion that Ex.P-1 - cheque is supported by legally enforceable debt and that the complainant has made out the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. I do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition. 2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 27, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1399 OF 2010 July 27, 2010