THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Criminal Appeal No.853 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appeal, filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 17-06-2002, in C.C.No.409 of 1999 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the 1st respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the complainant’s case may be stated as follows : The accused was awarded the contract work near Guntur and as he was short of money, on his request, the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to him. In partial discharge of the said amount, the accused issued a cheque, Ex.P1, for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and when the cheque was presented for clearance, it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. On being contacted by the complainant, the accused represented to present the cheque again. Then, on the presentation of the cheque, it was again returned with an endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. After giving statutory legal notice, the complaint was filed. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the complainant, three witnesses were examined and four documents were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D15 were marked. Similarly, Exs.X1 to X5 were marked. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 6. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the complainant proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act? 7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Judgment. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal, unless the findings recorded are perverse or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence was not taken into consideration. While dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal, there must be compelling or substantial reasons. The offence alleged against the accused is under section 138 of the Act. The following aspects have to be proved by the complainant so as to attract the penal consequences : (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 9. A Notice has to be issued to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount. If accused fails to pay the amount within 30 days, the initial burden lies on the complainant to establish that the cheque in question was given for legally enforceable debt or liability. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act can be drawn. The presumption under Section 139 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. The accused can rebut the said presumption by adducing evidence by preponderance of probability. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 was not believed by the trial Court. In the first instance, when the cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. On the request of the accused, the cheque was again presented, but there is no evidence to show that the accused requested P.W.1 to re-present the cheque. P.W.1 admitted his signature in Ex.D14. From the deposition of P.W.1, it is clear that he misplaced two cheques issued to him and he has undertaken to return those cheques whenever they were traced and also assured that he would not misuse those cheques. Further, P.W.1 has not produced any evidence to show that he lent an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused for business purpose. There is no supporting document to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant. It is admitted by P.W.1 that due to business transactions, he used to deposit some amount in the account of the accused. Exs.X4 and X5 would go to show that P.W.1 deposited Rs.50,000/- cash. The cheque in question was dishonoured on 11- 05-1999. Such is the case, crediting the amount of Rs.50,000/- by P.W.1 in the account of the accused does not arise. He would have appropriated that amount towards the partial discharge of the debt due to him. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the record, rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons so as to interfere with the order of acquittal. 11. For the above reasons, the Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed, confirming the Judgment, dated 17-06-2002 in CC.No.409 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J. 26th October, 2009. SKMR