1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.1.2015 passed by the court of V special Magistrate at Hastinapur, Rangarerddy District in C.C.No.140/2014 in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), the complainant filed the present appeal.

2. The appellant is the complainant and the 1st respondent is the accused. The parties shall be referred to as per their array before the trial court.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at the stage of admission.

4. The case of the complainant is that he and the accused are known to each other. The accused is the absolute owner-cum-possessor of H.No.2-18-27, Plot Nos.38 part, 39 and 40 in Sy.No.789/2 and 789/3 admeasuring 625 sq. meters situated at Zahid Nagar, Uppal, Rangareddy District. The accused offered to sell the said property to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,15,62,500/- and complainant agreed to purchase the same and paid an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- as advance and entered into agreement on 18.4.2012, in the presence of elders. It is agreed that the balance amount of Rs.75,62,500/- would be paid on or before 30.6.2012. The accused also agreed to clear the title defect, if any, of the said property and deliver possession to the complainant. The accused also agreed to return the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the complainant if the property is in litigation. After entering into agreement and on payment of advance amount, the complainant came to know that the property was under litigation. The same was informed to the accused, but the accused did not respond properly and cleared the title. Accordingly the complainant demanded the accused to return the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/-. The accused paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- immediately and issued two cheques bearing Nos. 240512 dated 14.11.2013 for Rs.15,00,000/- and 240512 dated 21.12.2013 for Rs.20,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad for the balance amount. When the complainant presented the said cheques on 12.2.2014, both of them were returned with the endorsement “account closed”. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 18.2.2014 and the same was returned with the postal endorsement “unclaimed”. As the accused failed to pay the amount under the cheques in question, the complainant filed the case for punishing the accused under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act.

5. The court below after framing appropriate issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the cheques Exs.P-2 and P-3 were issued for legally enforceable debt or liability and therefore, the accused has not committed any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly acquitted him by the impugned judgment. Challenging the same, the complainant filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. While reiterating the above averments made in the complaint, he stated that there is statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Act that the cheques were issued for discharging legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the accused issued the cheques Exs.P-2 and P-3. Therefore, unless he rebuts the said presumption, the burden will not shift on the complainant to prove that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt.

7. However, in the present case, the accused has not discharged his burden, by leading any evidence.

8. Learned counsel further submits that accused sought to contend that he sold the house to the complainant and to one Ramulu, who was doing real estate business along with the complainant. The house was registered in the name of the said Ramulu an