H P Sandesh, J.

Heard the arguments of the appellant's counsel, and also the counsel for respondent.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.755/2006 on the file of the JMFC, Banhatti, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act contending that the respondent was running a Finance business named as OM Finance Corporation in the premises of Veerabhadreshwar temple, wherein the deity is maintained by the complainant and his family members as Pujaris. The accused was leased under the complainant paying rent for the premises about 6-7 years back so as accused was very well known to the complainant and his family members. In the said OM Finance Corporation, the accused and some other persons including the members of the accused family are the partners. The accused used to take the hand loan from the father and sister of the complainant and kept the deposit in his finance and used to take the money and in respect of these transaction accused has maintained proper accounts. The complainant has further stated that the accused-left the leased properties of the complainant one and half years back. At that time, total amount is to be paid by the accused was Rs.4,85,000/-. The calculation was made by the accused during the year 2005 and he promised to repay it. Accused has assured the complainant that he himself will pay the said amount as it was fallen to his share and requested to handover the original fixed deposit certificates to him. The complainant has further stated that accused agreed a mutual understanding before the local Panchas and the matter was settled once for all for Rs.4,85,000/- and for that purpose, accused issued cheque for Rs.4,85,000/- on 21/6/2006 before the Panchas to show his trustworthiness in the matter. It is further contended that the accused has drawn his personal cheque and promised to honour the said cheque and when the same was presented for encashment, for which the complainant and elders objected for personal cheque. The accused had convinced that it was their interest between the parties and requested not to worry about the money. Hence, there is no any other way to the complainant to accept the present cheque for the said amount. When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement "Account Closed" and the same was intimated and thereafter, accused requested the complainant one month time and further requested him to represent the cheque again and same was again presented and same endorsement was received. Hence, notice was issued against the respondent herein and the same was served and respondent did not give any reply. Hence, cognizance was taken. Complainant in support of his contention, he examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 12. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The Court below after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed. The main contention in this appeal is the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused on the ground that the successive presentation of cheque did not attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act when the account was closed. The very finding of the Court below is erroneous. The Court below also while acquitting the accused assigned the reasons that the cheque was presented twice i.e. on 21/6/2000 and 26/8/2006 and the complainant in the cross examination, admits that notice was issued when the cheque was returned with an endorsement 'Account Closed' at the first instance and there are two notices as per the admission of PW-1. Same is not cognizable and on that ground also, it was rejected. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Counsel appearing for the ap