1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Mulbagal in C.C.No.41/2006 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act', for brevity). The same is challenged in this appeal urging various grounds.

2. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: The complainant and the accused being the native of same Hobli were having good relationship. The accused approached the complainant to give a loan of Rs.50,000/- to dig borewell and install pumpset. After several demands and requests of complainant, issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- for Canara Bank, Mulbagal bearing No.441315 dated 30.6.1999. Further as per the instructions of the accused, complainant presented the cheque for encashment. But the cheque was dishonoured for want of insufficient funds and the bank issued an endorsement to that effect. Subsequently, the complainant got issued legal notice through registered post and certificate of posting, but the same was refused by accused. To escape liability accused filed a false complaint before the police and gave evasive reply notice on 14.8.1999. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the court below under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. The Court below after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, registered criminal case against the accused and issued summons to the accused. After service of summons, accused appeared through his counsel and plea has been recorded and there afterwards, the case was posted for recording the evidence of complainant.

4. Subsequently, in order to substantiate her contentions, the complainant examined herself as PW.1 by way of filing affidavit and examined Manager of the Canara Bank as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. After closure of the evidence of complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the entire case of the complainant and in support his defence he examined himself as DW.1 by way of filing of affidavit and no documentary evidence was marked.

5. Subsequently, the Trial Court, on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, had framed the points that arose for its consideration and answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 as per the final order and thereby acquitted the accused. It is this acquittal judgment which is called in question in the present appeal.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and learned counsel for the respondent/accused in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant during the course of his arguments contends that Trial Court was not proper in holding that there was no transaction between the accused and the complainant and only on the instigation of the husband of the complainant, the case has been filed by the complainant. He also contends that the Trial Court was not proper in holding that the complainant admitted in her cross examination that the transaction has taken place 10 years back and the complaint is filed belatedly and barred by limitation for recovery of money. Whereas the Trial Court had failed to note that the cross examination is recorded after 9 years from the date of filing of the complaint. He further contends that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. The finding given by the Court below is perverse and hence the judgment and order is not sustainable in law and sought for setting aside the same.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contends that the court took twice cognizance of the complainant and it is against the principles of law and as per the version of the complainant about 10 years back the accused had took hand loan from the complainant and for repayment of lo