JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Crl.A. No. 657/2009 dated 06.07.2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III, Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court as complainant and accused to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 issued a cheque dated 02.08.2006 for Rs. 2,30,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty lakhs) to the complainant towards discharge of debt. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' vide memo dated 03.08.2006. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 29.08.2006 both by RPAD and UCP and the same was served on the said accused persons but they have neither replied the notice nor complied the demand made in the legal notice. Hence, a complaint was filed and the accused were secured and denied the allegation and claimed trial.

5. The complainant, in order to prove his case, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they got themselves examined as DW1 and DW2 and got marked document Ex.D1. The trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused persons directing them to pay fine of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rs. 3 crores) and out of the said fine amount, Rs. 2,99,95,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the complainant. Being aggrieved, the accused persons filed an appeal in Crl. Appeal. No. 657/2009. The appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court and acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that issuance of cheque-Ex.P1 by the accused persons is not in dispute. That the accused persons have issued the said cheque jointly to discharge the debt payable to the complainant on behalf of Indo Global Spices Ltd. (for short 'IGSL') It is further contended that the appellate Court has committed an error holding that when the accused company was not at all due for any amount to the complainant, the respondents being the Directors cannot be held liable to pay the dues to the appellant's company and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the accused persons have not committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') and acquitted them. That the learned appellate Court has also erred in coming to the conclusion that two suits are pending adjudication and further erred in coming to conclusion that the accused persons are not liable to pay the cheque amount and also erred in coming to the conclusion that the trial Court failed to consider the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act and so also presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant in addition to the grounds urged in the appeal memo would submit that the accused persons have categorically admitted in their cross-examination that they have signed Ex.P1-Cheque which is not in dispute. Once the accused persons admit the issuance of cheque, the Court has to draw statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The accused persons have to rebut the presumption by giving cogent evidence. The defence of the accused persons is that the subject matter of cheque collected through the employee of the former company was misused and the same has not been proved by the accused persons. Learned counsel would also submit that the accused persons have categorically admitted the documents-Exs.P17(A)(1) to P17(A)(5), liability and issuance of other cheques but they did not comply the conditions of the Exs.P17(A)(1) to P17(A)(5) and