This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2010 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur in Criminal Case.No.3294/2006 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 complainant’s case are as under:

The accused had availed hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant. In pursuance of the same, he had issued a cheque dated 11.8.2006 bearing No.265574 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chikmagalur branch. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker – State Bank of Mysore, Chikmagalur. The same was returned unpaid with the Bank memo stating “Funds Insufficient and alteration requires authentication” to honor the cheque. They issued memo on 12.8.2006. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was served on the accused, he neither paid the amount nor replied to the said notice. The accused fully aware that there was no sufficient amount in the account had issued the said cheque purposely with some alteration with an intention to cheat the complainant thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The cheque was issued by the accused in order to deceive the complainant, as such he was liable for punishment.

3. On filing of the complaint by the complainant before the jurisdictional court, the court after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the documents produced along with the complaint and in view of the prima facie case made out against the accused, registered the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and issued summons to the accused. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the court below through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. Plea of accusation was read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents as per Ex.P1 to P6 and closed his side evidence. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the complaint the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused totally denied the entire case of the complainant. No documents were marked on his behalf. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the complainant PW1 has admitted that there is material alteration in the instrument at Ex.P1. Therefore, under Section 87 of the NI Act any alternation in that instrument would make it as void whereas accused has not disputed his signature on the instrument of Ex.P1 cheque which is issued by him. The amount written in words as “Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand”, whereas in number, the digit “5” is overwritten. Therefore, it would not amount to material alteration in the facts and circumstances of the case as the complainant has initiated the proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act relating to cheque which is bounced and also prosecute the case against him as the accused is required to pay the cheque amount and the same has been established by him before the Court.

6. It is further contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in res