H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.

The present appellant as a complainant had instituted a private complaint against the present respondent in the Court of the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (henceforth for brevity referred to as "trial Court") for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 10.02.2010, acquitted the accused / respondent for the alleged offence. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

3. In support of his complaint, the complainant got examined one Sri.T.Shankar Reddy as PW1 and through him got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P4(c) which also included the alleged returned cheque at Ex.P1, Bank's endorsement at Ex.P3, Office copy of notice at Ex.P4 and the postal acknowledgement at Ex.P4(c). The accused got himself examined as DW1 and got produced ten documents as Exs.D1 to D10 which includes two notices said to have been sent by the same complainant at Exs.D1 and D2 and eight receipts at Exs.D3 to D10.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant in his argument submitted that the entire judgment of the trial Court is erroneous f