JUDGMENT :

The appellant/complainant is challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Vijayapura in C.C.No.4945/2015, dated 02.11.2020 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I.Act').

2. The parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of complainant can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused has approached the complainant and requested to give hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and promise to pay within six months. The accused in order to discharge the said debt has issued cheque bearing No.002051 dated 06.08.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Jamakahandi taluka for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The said cheque on presentation through his banker KVG Bank, Branch Bijapur on 20.08.2015 and came to be bounced for want of sufficient fund in the account of accused as per bank endorsement dated 20.08.2015. The complainant has issued demand notice dated 19.09.2015, the same has been duly served on 21.09.2015. The accused in spite of due service of notice has neither paid the amount covered under the cheque nor replied to the said notice. The complaint is filed on 04.11.2015.

4. In response to the summons, the accused has appeared through counsel and contested the case. The complainant in order to prove his case relied on the oral evidence of PW1 and the documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The accused has not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court after having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence has acquitted the accused from the charge leveled against him for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

5. The appellant/ complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the said judgment of acquittal contending that the non mentioning of exact date about the payment of money and issuance of cheque cannot be fatal to the case of complainant. The Trial Court was not justified in doubting the loan transaction by invoking Section 269-SS of Income Tax Act and committed serious error in recording the finding that it is not legally enforceable debt. The accused has never questioned the financial capacity of complainant in lending the money. The alleged land transaction claimed by the accused during the course of cross examination of PW1 is not supported by any evidence on record. The Trial Court has committed serious error in relying the overruled judgment of Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported in (2008) 4 SCC Page No.54, and the Trial Court should noted the subsequent judgment of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC page No.441 and would have drawn necessary presumption in terms of Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and to convict the accused for the charge leveled against him.

6. In response to the notice of appeal, respondent has appeared through his counsel.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. The appellant/complainant in support of his oral evidence about issuance of cheque by accused for legally enforceable debt has relied on the cheque as per Ex.P1 dated 06.08.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank Chikkali Cross Branch, Jamakhandi Taluka for Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant has presented the said cheque for collection through his banker KVG Bank, Branch Bijapur as per Ex.P1. The same was bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account of accused vide bank endorsement as per Ex.P2 on 20.08.2015. The complainant has issued demand notice as per Ex.P3 dated 19.09.2015. The same is duly served on accused 21.09.2015 as per Ex.P5. The accused has not paid the amount covered under the cheque as per Ex.P1 on demand and therefore the complaint is filed on 04.11.2015. If the above referred documents are perused an