failed to hand over the cheque, instead gave it to the complainant to launch a false prosecution. If that be so, the accused was bound to establish the transaction that he had with H.V.Rajesh and the fact that he and his father had given away cheques to secure the loan raised from H.V.Rajesh. It was for the accused to establish that the cheque in question, was the one, which was given to H.V.Rajesh. Except the self-serving statement of the accused that the cheque was given to H.V.Rajesh, no material was placed before the Trial Court in that regard. The accused did not even examine his father to establish that two cheques belonging to him were handed over to H.V.Rajesh at the time of raising the loan of Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, there was no material to hold that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, 1881 was rebutted by the accused. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered the evidence on record earnestly and they have rightly held that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court.
