B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The appellant-complainant seeks to assail the judgment of acquittal dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, in the private complaint case C.C. No. 112 of 2004 filed by said complainant against the accused V. Rajasekhar Reddy (1st respondent herein), for an offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity 'the Act').

2. The facts before the trial Court are that on 29.09.2002 the accused approached the complainant at his residence and borrowed an amount of Rs. 18,000/- and also executed Ex. P. 1 promissory note in favour of the complainant but failed to repay the same, then on demands made by the complainant, the accused issued Ex. P. 2 cheque bearing No. 236510 for Rs. 18,000/- on 29.10.2002, that on 21.04.2003, when the complainant presented for collection the same was returned dishonoured on the reason of 'insufficiency of the funds' covered by Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 cheque return memos, dated 29.10.2002 and 25.04.2003 and the same is intimated to the accused through Ex. P. 5 legal notice, dated 05.05.2003 covered by Ex. P. 6 receipt, by the complainant evidenced by Ex. P. 7 certificate of posting but the same was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was refused to take the notice, that the accused neither paid nor replied for legal notice which made the complainant to file the private complaint case.

3. The accused appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons and after supply of case copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, "The Cr.P.C.") he pleaded not guilty.

4. On behalf of the complainant during the course of trial besides himself as P.W. 1 cause examined P.W. 2 G. Buchaiah and P.W. 3 Deshabandu and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 9, Viz., Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 mentioned supra, Ex. P. 8 medical certificate and Ex. P. 9 is returned postal cover and on defence side the accused examined himself as D.W. 1 and cause examined D.Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 viz; receipt, scanning receipt, statement, user call details and certificate issued by Insurance company.

5. After closure of evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. who denied the incriminating material put to him. No more oral or documentary evidence adduced by accused.

6. Appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Court below ultimately held that the complainant could not prove guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereby not found guilty and acquitted the accused with findings that as per the defence of accused, he did not issue Ex. P2 cheque to the complainant but for one Mallikarjuna Enterprises on 28.09.2002 by mentioning the date 29.10.2002 having purchased motor pipes worth of Rs. 48,000/- and he paid Rs. 30,000/- in cash and issued cheque for Rs. 18,000/- in the presence of D.W. 2 Sai Reddy, and later gave motor to said Mallikarjun for repairs as there is warrantee for one year and D.W. 2 Sai Reddy who deposed that he accompanied the accused to Mallikarjuna enterprises and on 28.09.2002, the accused has settled the account with Mallikarjun and the accused is liable to pay Rs. 48,000/- then the accused has paid Rs. 30,000/- in cash and issued cheque for Rs. 18,000/- and D.W. 3 was examined by the accused by issuing summons through Court and according to him, he is doing business under the name and style of Mallikarjuna Engineering company and the accused used to purchase motors and pipelines and he does not know whether accused paid Rs. 30,000/- and issued cheque for Rs. 18,000/- in the presence of D.W. 2 Sai Reddy on 28.09.2002 or not and there are presumptions under the N.I. Act for the signature on the pronote and cheque admitted by accused as issued. However, it is for the complainant to establish the passing of