2. The appellant is original complainant. He filed private complaint cases (SCC. No 5664/2003. S.C.C. No.5711/2003. S.C.C. No.5712/2003. S.C.C No.5665/2003 and S.C.C. No.5728/2003) against the respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent was tried in all the above five (5) private complaint cases. The learned Judicial Magistrate (FC). Aurangahad acquitted the respondent in all the five (5) private complaint cases for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence. these appeals against judgments of acquittal.

3. It is not necessary to set out the complainants case stated in each of the private complaint case in as much as the averments made in all the complaint cases are identical. Suffice it to say. The appellant/complainant alleged that he is lega1 practitioner and had given loan of Rs.three (3) lacs to the respondent by making payments from time to time. The respondent promised to pay the hand loan amount vide a promissory note executed by him on November 10th, 1988. The respondent did not. However, repay the amounts as promised though demanded on various occasions. The respondent eventually executed a security bond dated May 15th, 2003 whereby he agreed to repay the amount outstanding against him. He issued post dated cheques as described in the "Hamipatra" (security bond). He had issued in all ten (10) cheques. Out of them, the five (5) cheques were deposited in the bank account as per the scheduled dates of payments but the same were dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the respondent. The appellant alleges that he sent a demand notice dated 14-08-2003 under certificate of posting at the address of the respondent. The notice of demand could have been served, deemingly, on the respondent on August 21 st. 2003. He failed to repay' the amount inspite of service of the demand notice. Consequently, the five (5) private complaint cases were instituted.

4. The respondent raised multiple defences. The respondent denied that he issued the cheques in favour of the appellant (complainant). He denied execution of the Promissory Note and the (security bond) as referred in the private complaint cases. He further denied that he was served with demand notice by the petitioner. His contention before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that he is an agriculturist and used to cultivate agricultural land of the appellants uncle by name Jeevan Jain. He submitted that he had financial dealing with said Jeevan Jain. one Jairam Babuwani (Sindhi) and Vasudeo Babuwani (Sindhi) between 1999 to 200l. He used to cultivate their lands. He issued blank cheques to them, including to the uncle of the appellant/complainant. By way of security. He was never acquainted with the appellant and never transacted with him. He asserted that the blank cheques issued in favour of the uncle of the appellant and the other two (2) persons were misused for tiling false complaints. He denied that the demand notices were served on him.

5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of the rival contentions. Considering the material placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the appellant failed to establish the necessary ingredients of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the respondent came to be acquitted.

6. Mr. Goyanka would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence of the appellant/complainant. He would submit that presumption available under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by the respondent. He contended that the notice of demand was issued on proper address and therefore, service thereof ought to have been presumed. He contended that t