JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 16.06.2014 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Crl.A.No.18/2013 where under the judgment and sentence passed in C.C.No.3811/2010 dated 08.03.2013 by IV Addl. Civil Jude (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Gulbarga convicting the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’), came to be set-aside and respondent – accused was acquitted for the said offence.

2. The appellant was the complainant and respondent was the accused before the Trial Court.

3. The parties will be referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

4. Case of the complainant in brief is as under;-

The complainant was working as a superintendent in Mahatma Jyotibha Phule Padavi Mahavidyalaya, an educational institution run by the accused. At that point of time, on the request of accused for hand loan for improvement of institution and business necessities, the complainant advanced loan of Rs.7,00,000/-to him on 10.06.2009 by pooling out funds from her family members and relatives. The accused agreed to repay the loan within six months. After six months, the accused did not repay the loan. After repeated persuasion accused issued a cheque dated 15.03.2010 for Rs.7,00,000/-to complainant, drawn on Canara Bank, Subramanya Nagar, Bangaluru. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. The cheque returned unpaid with an endorsement ‘account closed by drawer’. Immediately thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 27.03.2010 to accused to his both addresses. The accused issued reply notice. With these averments the complainant had filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5. The complainant herself examined as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to 7. The accused denied the incriminating evidence while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused led defence evidence by examining himself as DW.1 and he examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to 10.

6. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides, formulated point for consideration and passed judgment dated 08.03.2013 in C.C.No.3811/ 2010 and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-. In default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of this fine amount, a sum of Rs.9,75,000/-was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and remaining amount was ordered to be remitted to the State.

7. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.No.18/2013 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. The said appeal came to be allowed by the judgment dated 16.06.2014 and judgment passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.3811/2011 dated 08.03.2013 came to be set-aside and respondent – accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

8. The appellant – complainant has challenged the said judgment in this appeal.

9. Heard Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant. The learned counsel for the respondent – accused was absent.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant – complainant would contend that the order passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to the law and facts. The Appellate Court has not applied its judicial mind to the facts and material on record and reached wrong conclusion. The Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence or documents properly. The Trial Court had rightly held that the accused had not disputed his signature on the cheque and the accused in his reply had stated that this complainant had stolen the cheque. The different version have been stated in the Court. Hence, the Court held that the complainant had proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted th