THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.276 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment in S.T.C.No.177 of 2005, dated 03.04.2007, passed by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, where under the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards his liability to the complainant and the complainant when deposited the same, the same was returned as ‘insufficient funds’, for which, the complainant issued a notice, to which, the respondent-accused issued reply notice dated 04.08.2005 stating that he has not issued any cheque to the complainant. Further, he stated that he issued a cheque to one Subba Rao, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein, and further it is the case of the complainant that the cheque is given by the accused to discharge his liability. 4. Learned Magistrate after perusal of the record and examination of the witnesses, acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 1. In the reply notice itself, the accused denied the issuance of cheque to the complainant and he has taken the defence in the initial stage; 2. It is admitted by the complainant while cross- examination that the cheque in question is an unfilled cheque and it is filled up by the complainant without the consent of the accused. 5. It is well settled proposition and also this Court and the Apex Court held that ‘Negotiable Instrument means, it is an instrument, which can be negotiated and it should be filled by the person, who executed the same. In the present case, the said cheque was filled by the complainant without the consent of the accused herein. In the absence of any consent, if an instrument is filled up by the complainant that cannot be called as ‘Negotiable Instrument’ as it was not given towards discharge of the liability of the accused and the learned Magistrate held the same in proper perspective and acquitted the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only in the cross-examination the complainant admitted the fact that he has filled up the cheque without the consent of the accused. Learned counsel further argued that in the chief-examination, he has stated so. It is also well settled in law that appreciation of evidence means, not only the chief examination, but also the cross-examination. So, taking into consideration the said answer given in the cross-examination, the learned Magistrate appreciated the case. 7. Further, it is a case of acquittal. In appeal against acquittal, if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. 9. Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 27th January 2011, Rns.