IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof on the accused in cases under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, the presumption of innocence, and the need for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the respondent/complainant in Criminal Appeal No.310 of 2015, on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada (for short, "Additional Sessions Judge"), challenging the Judgment, dtd. 17/7/2017, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondents/accused, setting aside the conviction judgment dtd. 5/6/2015 in C.C.No.262 of 2014, on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (for short, "the trial Court"), Kakinada, under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I. Act").

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant herein, in the capacity of the complainant before the trial Court filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

4. The case of the complainant is that A.1 and A.2 borrowed Rs.3,00,000.00 each from the complainant on 27/3/2011, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, and they executed Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 Promissory notes respectively. On 3/2/2013, A.1 and A.2 issued Ex.P3-Cheque bearing No.401701 for Rs.6,00,000.00 towards part payment, drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Kakinada, in favour of the complainant. On being presented with the Cheque by the complainant, the same was dishonoured and returned with Ex.P4 cheque return memo with an endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer". Later, on 4/3/2013, the complainant got issued Ex.P5 legal notice to the accused, for which the accused gave a reply on 14/3/2013 under Ex.P6, but the accused did not pay any amount and kept quiet. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused.

5. The learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kakinada took cognizance under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. After the appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., they were examined under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. concerning the allegations in the complainant case, for which they denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial on behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. After the closure of complainant's evidence, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, for which they denied the same and reported defence evidence. A.1 himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4 documents to prove their case.

7. The learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, convicted the accused 1 and 2 under Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, and they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the Judgment, accused 1 and 2 preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.310 of 2015 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, which was allowed by setting aside the trial Court judgment. Felt aggrieved, the unsuccessful complainant filed the present Criminal Appeal.

8. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered that the accused had admitted to a financial transaction with the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have acquitted the accused solely based on the letter sent to the bank to stop payment. He further asserts that the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have taken into account that once the borrowed amount had been repaid by the accused, he should not have had to wait for the return of the promissory notes and cheques from the appellant. As a result, sending a letter to the bank to stop the payment and then issuing a Cheque afterwards indicates malicious in