ORDER :

1. Distraught about the acquittal of the drawer of a cheque, this revision under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by payee of the cheque/complainant.

2. First respondent is the accused before the Courts below. Second respondent is State.

3. Alleging an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’) this appellant originally filed a complaint and that was tried by the learned III-Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as C.C. No. 165 of 2005. After due trial, the sole accused was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months prescribed for it.

4. The aggrieved accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2005. After due hearing, the learned VIII-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada vide judgment dated 23.01.2007 found the accused not guilty and acquitted him by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Against such judgment of acquittal this criminal revision is filed by the complainant.

6. Facts leading to the present revision are required to be noticed now:

Two trading partnership firms have been in business transactions concerning pesticides. The complainant was selling pesticides on cash basis as well as credit basis and the accused used to purchase pesticides on credit basis. Complainant, in his books of accounts maintained the relevant account for these transactions. The business commenced in the year 1999 and the business transactions stopped between the parties somewhere in the year 2000. By then as per the accounting calculations of the complainant there was outstanding due recoverable from the accused. The assertion of the complainant is that, it is entitled to claim interest 24% p.a. on the over due amount going by the agreement, usage and law between the parties. Concerning the overdue amount, the last payment transaction occurred between the parties sometime in the year 2001. Subsequently, on the demands for repayment the accused allegedly drew a cheque dated 03.01.2003 for Rs. 2,60,000/- on an account maintained by it with the Indian Bank, Nandigama, Krishna District Branch payable to complainant. On its presentation the banker returned it unpaid with an endorsement that the funds in the account of accused were insufficient. Thereafter, the complainant dispatched statutory notices both by way of the registered post as well as by way of certificate of posting. Finding no response from the accused and finding no repayment, the complainant complained to the learned trial Court. After requisite procedure the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused who made its appearance through its learned counsel. After furnishing copies of documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the essential accusations were read out under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the truth of the facts and pleaded not guilty. At the trial, complainant testified as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The incriminating material available on record was posed to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. seeking his explanations. He did not explain any piece of evidence except saying that entire evidence is false. Thereafter, accused entered into the witness box and testified as DW-1. After hearing arguments on both sides and after considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. During the course of appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court recorded that complainant is a registered partnership firm and copy of the certificate of registration is Ex.P9. It stated that the account of the accused maintained by the complainant is Ex.P8. Accused/DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted the truth and correctness of contents of Ex.P8. Thus, the trial Court recorded a finding that there was subsisting liability on part of accused