This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.11727/2011 by the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.

2. The appellant/complainant challenged the judgment and order of the Court below on the grounds mentioned in para (a) to (n) in the memorandum of appeal and he has challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgment and order of the Court below.

3. By the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. Brief facts of the case of the complainant before trial Court, is that he filed a private complaint, which was ultimately registered as C.C.No.11727/2011 with the allegations that the accused and his brother Umesh approached the complainant in the last week of May, 2010 and requested for hand loan of Rs.5,50,000/- that the same is required to meet the marriage expenses of their cousin sister and promised to repay the same within six months and for that they are ready to execute On Demand Promissory Note Agreement on stamp paper till execution as security for the prompt repayment of the said loan. Besides accused also promised to issue post-dated cheque on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, with the authority to the complainant to fill up his name, the loan amount both in words and in figures including date. Taking into consideration the relationship of the complainant with accused and his brother and believing their words and promise held out by the accused and having received from the accused the duly executed On Demand Promissory Note Agreement on stamp paper, besides receiving blank cheque in their favour drawn on Vijaya Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bengaluru bearing No.067425 dated 02.12.2010 for Rs.5,50,000/-, the complainant gave the hand loan in a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the accused.

5. The further averments in the private complaint goes to show that the accused executed On Demand Promissory Note Agreement on stamp paper given by way of security for due performance of the prompt repayment of the aforesaid hand loan taken and whereas the aforesaid post-dated cheque was given by the accused. The further allegation made in the complaint is that when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with the endorsement of the bank that “funds insufficient”. The further case is that subsequently, the complainant has issued legal notice to the three addresses of the accused persons and two notices were returned as per the shara of the postal authority “No such person in the said address” and one notice was returned as “not claimed”. Hence, the case came to be filed before the trial Court. The accused appeared before the trial Court and has denied the case of the complainant. Then, the complainant examined himself and three witnesses in support of his case and he has also marked documents as per Ex.P1 – P18. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and also produced documents Ex.D1 to D9.

6. After hearing arguments on both the sides, ultimately, the trial Court was of the opinion that complainant failed to prove his case. Accordingly, acquitted the respondent/accused for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and also the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant made the submission that the issuance of the cheque and the signature are not in dispute. But, the contention of the other side is that no such amount was borrowed nor it was required to perform the marriage of cousin sister of the accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that whenever the cheque is issued, the signature on the said instrument has to be proved and the said