The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in rebutting the presumption available to the complainant under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the impact of civil court judgments on the criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Shivanand V.Pattanshetti and Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No.1505/2011 who obtained an order of conviction of the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, 'N.I.Act') and was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,000.00 as compensation which was reversed and accused came to be acquitted of in Crl.A.No.24/2013.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

A complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C came to be filed by the appellant herein contending that accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and as the cheque issued by him towards his obligation in repaying the consideration amount of Rs.2,20,000.00, two cheques came to be dishonored and another cheque in a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 came to be dishonored for stop payment and he sought for action against the accused.

4. The complaint averments further reveal that the notice issued by him regarding the dishonor of cheques has been improperly replied and there was no compliance to the callings of notice, he was constrained to file a complaint before the learned Magistrate.

5. Initially, a complaint came to be filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hosadurga in P.C.No.102/2005 and later it was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijayapur. Since the accused denied the plea, trial was held.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and relied on 10 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On his behalf he also examined two witnesses namely, Rajesh and Jagadishwar.

7. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant, accused got examined himself as DW1 and he also produced 10 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D1 to D.10.

8. Accused statement was recorded as is contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence wherein accused denied the incriminatory materials produced against him and he has also answered that he has got probable defence to putforth and he has examined himself as DW.1.

9. Learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties in detail, passed an order of conviction convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000.00 with default sentence of two months simple imprisonment and out of Rs.1,10,000.00, a sum of Rs.1,05,000.00 was ordered to paid as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal before II Addl. District Judge, Vijayapur in Crl.A.No.24/2013.

10. Learned Judge after securing the trial Court records and hearing the parties in detail by judgment dtd. 16/10/2014 reversed the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.1505/2011 and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court in this appeal.

11. In the appeal following grounds have been raised :-

* That, the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts of the case and Hence, the same is liable to be set evidence on the record. aside.

* That, one of the essential ingredients of See. 138 of N.I. Act that a cheqe in question must have been issued towards a legally recoverable or enforceable debt or liability Sec, 118 and 139 of N.I. Act envisage certain presumptions, under Sec. 118 a presumption shall be raised regarding consideration, date, of transfer, endorsement, and regarding holder in case negotiable instruments. Even Sec. 139 a rebuttable presumption shall be raised that the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in case of negotiable instrument. This fact and law is misinterpreted by the lower appellate court.

* That, in number of d