Point of Law: It is settled principles of law that court being Appellate Court will not interfere with judgment of acquittal, unless it is shown that judgment of acquittal is perverse.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal arising out of judgment of acquittal passed by the V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-20), wherein, respondents/accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'N.I. Act') in CC.No.28722/2006 dated 25.08.2012.

2. The appellant was the complainant and respondents were the accused before trial court. They will be referred as such as per their respective ranks held before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief case of the complainant before the trial Court was that:

Complainant was a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, it was engaged in importing of fertilizers and marketing. They are suppliers and distributors of M.O.P. DAP.17:17:17 and 20:20:20 etc. Accused No.1 is the Chairman and accused No.2 is the Director of M/s. Ganeshanugraha Fertilizers and Chemicals Private Limited, who are the dealers and manufacturers of chemicals and fertilizers. Complainant used to supply raw-materials and fertilizers to accused who in turn used to market it and supply of the materials by the complainant to the accused is made on credit basis and running account is maintained in respect of transactions between the parties. The transactions were going on for several years. The complainant used to supply the fertilizers and raw materials to the accused and accused in turn used to supply finished goods. The unrealized payment was adjusted on the basis of the quantity of Micro nutrients supplied to the complainant and in those transactions, there is accumulation of payments. As on 27.10.2005 an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-was due to the complainant from the accused including interest and over due interest. Towards discharge of the same, accused issued a cheque bearing No.428106 dated 27.10.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-in favour of the complainant drawn on the Bank of India, Hotel Dharwad building, P.B. Road, Dharwad. But when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonored with a Bank endorsement as 'exceeds arrangement'. In this regard, complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount, but the accused did not pay amount and sent untenable reply. Hence, complaint was lodged.

4. Before the trial Court, complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked eighteen documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence against them. Accused No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked thirty two documents as Exs.D1 to D32. After hearing the arguments, learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Rishikesh Madhav, for Sri. T.Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. V.M. Sheelvant, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse and needs to be set aside. Learned counsel argued that the appellant/complainant has satisfied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act. The judgment of acquittal is on technicalities as the trial Court found that the documents are interchanged with another case in C.C.No.28723/2006 filed between the same parties in respect of other cheque issued. Therefore, the trial Court's finding on technical ground is erroneous. The Appellate Court has got ample power to appreciate the documentary evidence available in both the cases. The inference drawn are erroneous, it is only a technical ground and not on merits. Therefore, the acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

7. Learned counsel argued that, in this case the accused have filed an affidavit evidence, which is not permissible as no leave is sought under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinaf