1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.09.2001 passed in C.C.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found accused Kadam Kandoji not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, 'the N.I. Act'), and acquitted him accordingly.

2. The appellant is the complainant and the first respondent is the accused in C.C.No.2 of 1998. The parties hereinafter referred to as the complainant and the accused.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused took a hand loan of Rs.25,000/- from him in October, 1997. The accused issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 05.11.1997 for Rs.25,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Nuzvid Branch, towards discharge of hand loan. The complainant presented the cheque for collection and thereupon the cheque came to be dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. The complainant got issued Ex.P3 notice to the accused as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Actcalling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question. The accused despite receiving the notice, neither paid the money covered under the cheque in question nor issued any reply. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

4. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.2 of 1998 and issued process. In response to the summons, the accused entered appearance. On examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C., putting the substance of accusations levelled against the accused, the accused denied the accusations leveled against him and pleaded not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. It is the plea of the accused that the complainant purchased Ac.1.50 cents of land situated in Narsupet village form him for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- under a possessory agreement of sale and thereafter the complainant approached him and represented that his wife had been giving some trouble since the land purchased by him was not fetching profits and requested him to issue a signed blank cheque as security for the consideration received from him and thereupon, he obliged him by issuing a cheque for Rs.25,000/-, on assurance that the cheque would be returned to him after sale of the land to third parties. To probabalise his defence, he got himself examined as DW.1.

6. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque as a security and thereby proceeded to record acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, by judgment dated 17.09.2001. Hence, this criminal appeal by the complainant.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/accused.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the trial Court overlooked the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the 1st respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. A further submission has been made that the defence pleaded by the 1st respondent/accused is neither probabalised nor proved the circumstances capable of drawing inference as to the probability of the defence pleaded by the 1st respondent/accused. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the following decisions:

1) Gorantla Venkateswara Rao v. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Anr.2005 (2) ALD (Cr