1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.12.2009 passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C.No.23063/2008 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. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any arguments and he was not present though the case was called several times.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

The complainant is known to the accused as a family friend. The accused is running a travel agency business in Gandhinagar area and in the month of October 2004 the accused has approached the complainant and requested him to give hand loan of Rs.70,000/- to meet his domestic problems and family commitments and also to invest some amount in the business. The complainant on considering the request of the accused, gave an amount of Rs.70,000/- by way of cash to the accused on 29.10.2004. While receiving the said loan amount, the accused has also executed Loan agreement and he did give three cheques in favour of the complainant. The accused also promised the complainant that he would return the loan amount during the month of April 2008. As per the request made by the accused, the complainant presented the cheques for encashment. But the cheques in question were dishonoured with an endorsement Drawee signature differs/incomplete and insufficient funds. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused both under RPAD and under UCP. The notice sent to the accused by RPAD returned with an postal acknowledgment “No such person in the address”. But however, the notice sent through UCP was served on the accused. Despite receipt of legal notice, the accused neither replied nor paid any amount towards the amount mentioned in the aforesaid cheques in question. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the court below alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and to prosecute the case against the accused.

4. Upon initiation of proceedings, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and summons was issued to the accused. On service of summons the accused had put his appearance before the Trial Court through his counsel and participated in the proceedings. The copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to the accused and plea was recorded. The accusation was read over to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Subsequently, in order to substantiate his contentions, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as per Ex.P1 to p13. Even Ex.P2(a), P3(a) and P4(a) were marked. On the defense part, the accused had examined himself as DW.1 and did not produce any documentary evidence. The statement under of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. 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 learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

7. Ex.P1 is the original complaint. Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.644021 dated 28.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P3 is the cheque bearing No.644026 dated 28.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P4 is cheque bearing No.644027 dated 28.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.P2 to P4 are drawn on Sree Subramanyeswara Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajatha Bhavana, Padmanabhanagar Branch, Bangalore. Complainant states that Ex.P2(a), P3(a) and P4(a) are the