The presumption of innocence strengthens upon acquittal, requiring substantial evidence of error for appellate intervention in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

1. Impugning the Judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.182 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Anantapur District dated 25.04.2008, the complainant preferred the present appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the Judgment.

2. Appellant herein was the Complainant, Respondent No.2 herein was the accused before the trial Court and the State was shown as Respondent No.1.

3. When this matter is taken up for hearing, none represented for the Appellant. Notice which was sent to the accused returned as unserved. Despite the matter being listed for the fourth time, none represented for the Appellant. It is a Criminal Appeal of 2008 and this Court would like to dispose of the same on merits.

4. As can be seen from the record, the case of the Complainant is that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Complainant and in discharge of the said debt issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.06.2004. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'account closed' on 11.08.2004. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued a legal notice, which was served on the father of the accused, a reply has been issued by the accused on 03.07.2006. As the accused did not choose to discharge the debt amount due, the Complainant preferred a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,[for short 'N.I.Act'].

5. Trial went on, during the course of trial the Complainant himself was examined as P.W.1, the Bank Manager of complainant's Bank was examined as P.W.2, the Bank Manager of the accused Bank was examined as P.W.3, Exs.P1 to P5 were the documents marked. In defence, the accused was examined as D.W.1.

6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidence of record, the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, acquitted him from the said charge.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment, the Complainant preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liability is on the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is clinching to the fact that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Judge should have drawn a presumption in favour of the Complainant, simply because account books were not placed. The Learned Judge erroneously held that the Complainant had no means to lend the amount except formal denial. There is no specific denial of the signature of the accused on the cheque.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

8. Ms. V. Disha Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted the arguments on behalf of the Complainant/Appellant. This Court has taken the assistance of Ms. Majji Venkata Divya Haritha, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused.

9. Learned Counsel representing the Complainant would submit that there is no mandate to show the amount which was lent to the accused in the income tax returns, and the complainant not obtaining promissory note or anything as security is not a ground for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant in categorical terms stated before the Court that he secured an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from his father-in-law, the complainant has successfully proved the case against the accused. On the other hand, accused failed to rebut the presumption which is in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Learned Counsel finally submits that appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned Judgment.

10. Contrasting the same, learned Amicus Curiae would submit that accused is a Chartered Accountant, by virtue of his profession the story of the complainant that he was doing real estate business at the relative point of time cannot be believed. The evidence on record would show that accused i