The main legal point established is the requirement for the complainant to substantiate the loan transaction and the accused's liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, including the need for credible evidence and documentation.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Badamikar, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties on both sides, the same is taken-up for final disposal.

2. The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( 'Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 25.10.2018 passed by the XVI additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City ('trial Court' for short) in CC No.1667/2017, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 ( 'NI act' for short).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to the case are that, the accused-P.R. Bhot was introduced to the complainant - ashok B. Dani by his friend Mr. B. Murthy Naik. Resident of Shivanagara, Bengaluru. The accused has requested the complainant for hand-loan in the last week of March 2013 in order to invest the same for establishment of an office and to meet his other financial commitments. Then the complainant has requested the accused to approach him in the month of June, 2013 assuring him that by that time, he would make some arrangements for loan. It is further alleged that, as per request, on 05.06.2013, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to accused with interest at the rate of 18% per month, in presence of his friend Sri. B. Murthy Naik. The accused has executed the loan agreement in complainant's favour on the same day, promising to repay the said loan amount within three years. It is the further case that, in March 2016, the complainant requested the accused for repayment of the loan with interest and then, the accused issued a cheque dated 15.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- including interest. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment, it was dishonoured on 24.04.2016 with an endorsement as 'Refer to Drawer'. It is further alleged that, the complainant got issued a legal notice through Registered Post acknowledgement Due ('RPaD' for short) and Speed Post on 24.05.2016 to the last known address of accused and the notice returned with postal endorsement 'No Such Person is residing in the given address' and hence, it is a deemed service. as such, the complainant claims that, he has filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. act. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process against accused. The accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The accusation was read-over and explained to accused, and he pleaded not guilty.

5. The complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and placed reliance on twelve documents marked as C1 to C12. after completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded, to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial. The accused has also got examined himself as DW.1. However, it is also important to note here that the complainant did not choose to cross-examine the accused and the evidence of accused remained unchallenged.

6. after hearing arguments of the learned counsels appearing on both sides, the learned Magistrate has found that, appellant/complainant has failed to establish his financial status to advance loan amount and further failed to prove the transaction of advancing of Rs.10,50,000/- and as such, acquitted the accused for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. act. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed this appeal.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and the respondent/accused. Perused th