JUDGMENT :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2015, on the file of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle [Hereinafter, Appellate Court] reversing the judgment of conviction passed by trial Court in C.C. No. 523 of 2011, on file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District [Hereinafter, Trial Court] against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Hereinafter, N.I. Act, 1881] the complainant preferred the present Appeal.

2. Heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri S.V.S.S. Sivaram, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No. 2.

3. This Court has gone through the entire material on record. This Court feels it is not necessary to re-produce the evidence. This Court will refer the evidence as and when necessary to the extent required. This is a case of dishonor of a cheque, said to have been issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt, in favour of complainant.

Case of Complainant

4. The case of complainant in nut shell:

4.1. Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from complainant on 14.12.2008, for the purpose of his business and executed a promissory note.

4.2. Accused issued a cheque bearing No. 120647, dated 24.12.2009 and also paid Rs.30,000/- towards part payment. Thereafter, he issued another cheque bearing No. 119753, dated 20.12.2010 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

4.3. Complainant presented the said cheque, which was returned as “Account closed.”

4.4. Complainant approached the accused. On request of accused, he presented the cheque after three (03) months i.e. on 21.04.2011, which was dishonored.

4.5. Complainant got issued legal notice on 27.04.2011, but the accused did not choose to pay the amount.

Version of Accused:

5. The plea of accused is of total denial. From the evidence of PW-1, the defence put forth by giving suggestions to the complainant, would show that it is a plea of discharge. Accused issued a cheque on 24.12.2009, for Rs.1,00,000/- and cash of Rs.30,000/- towards full and final settlement. But the complainant taking advantage of the blank promissory note and cheque, filed the false complaint.

Procedural History:

6. During the course of trial, complainant himself was examined as PW-1. Exs.P1 to P7 were the documents marked. In defence, no oral or documentary evidence adduced.

7. On appreciation of evidence on record, after hearing both the counsel, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, accused carried the matter in appeal before the appellate Court, where the judgment got reversed on the following grounds:

(a) As per Ex.P2, the cheque was dishonored since balance is ‘0’ and account closed on 03.10.2009. Whereas, Ex.P3 shows that, funds in sufficient upto 21-04-2011 at 5.30 PM, Complainant failed to examine the bank officials to clear the discrepancy.

(b) Ex.B4-Legal notice would show that, on 21.04.2011 also the cheque was returned with same endorsement as that of 21.12.2010. But the cheque was not returned for the same endorsement on 21.12.2010