The complainant must substantiate claims of loan and repayment; initial presumptions do not relieve him of the burden to prove a legally enforceable debt.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Rai K, J.

In this appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 20.07.2017 in Crl.A.No.112/2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.09.2013 in C.C.No.216/2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The complainant is the proprietor of Taj Stones Industries situated at Hanamsagar Road, Ilkal city. The accused is a proprietor of Chetak Enterprises situated at Madalthuruth, Moothukunnam, Ernakulam district, Kerala. They both were well acquainted. In the month of April, 2010 the accused approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000/-. Based on the request, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused by way of cash. After two months, the complainant demanded to repay the said amount. However, the accused failed to repay the loan amount and finally he issued a cheque dated 14.10.2010, bearing No.927999 drawn on UCO Bank, Ernakulam, Cochin for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his banker i.e., State Bank of Mysore, Ilkal Branch for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangements’. The said aspect was intimated by the complainant to the accused through legal notice dated 10.11.2010, though the notice sent to the resident of accused served, however the notice sent to the office of the accused returned with an endorsement ‘door locked’. Thereafter, left with no other option, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. To prove the case before the trial Court, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and examined one more witness on his behalf as PW.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8.

5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act and ordered as follows:

“ORDER

Acting U/s. 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act.

The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,10,000/- in default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

Acting under section 357 of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount that being deposited by the accused an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount shall be appropriated to the state.”

6. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.112/2013.

7. On reassessment of the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The said judgment of the First Appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel Sri R.H. Angadi for the appellant-complainant and the learned counsel Smt. Sonu Suhel for the respondent-accused.

9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant is that the First Appellate Court