This is a complainant's appeal and is directed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by judgment order dated 12.3.2008.

2. The complainant and accused, both commerce graduates and having technical background had entered into the partnership business under the name and style 'M/s. Excel Sales and Services' for repairs of home appliances, electronic goods, spares on mutually agreed terms w.e.f. 21.1.2003. The agreement also provided for an arbitration clause. However, the partnership business did not even continue for a period of seven months, as the accused started the same business, in the same name, but individually stating that the management of Whirlpool had authorized him to do so on account of mis-management of the affairs of the firm. The partnership firm had opened an account with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Panaji. The accused thereafter opened an account with Corporation Bank, Panaji w.e.f. 31.7.2003 and started operating the same as that of his proprietorship business in the same name.

3. A year later, the complainant on or about 22.7.2004 sent a letter to the accused calling upon the accused to make full and final settlement, as the accused had not made any payment inspite of assurance given. Thereafter, the complainant on or about 13.8.2005 sent a statutory demand notice. In the said notice, the complainant alleged that the accused had issued to him 11 cheques, all drawn on the Corporation Bank, Panaji, for a total amount of Rs.l. 7 lakhs with different dates stating that it would be convenient for him to arrange for their clearance/payment from his account in the Corporation Bank, Panaji, since the accused was not in a position to pay the said amount at one time. It was further stated that there were repeated requests by the accused to delay the presentation of the said cheques and as such the complainant deferred the presentation of the cheques for clearance but when the complainant deposited the said cheques on 23.7.2005 in an account maintained by him in HDFC Bank, Panaji, all the said cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement that the account was closed. The accused was called upon to pay the said amount of Rs.1.7 lakhs.

4. The accused replied to the said letter by his reply of August, 2005. In the said reply, the accused has stated that he was looking after the technical aspects of the business while the administrative and financial affairs at the shop were carried out by the complainant who was not maintaining proper accounts and had incurred heavy liabilities for the firm. It was also alleged that the accused had reason to believe that there was siphoning of funds and total mis-management with malafide motives to cause heavy losses and burden to the accused and that the accused was in the process of assessing the actual losses with the help available accounting data with the accused. The accused has also stated that he reserved the right to take necessary action against the complainant including for the alleged offences of misappropriation and cheating. It was also stated in the said reply by the accused that the complainant had access to the documents including the cheques enumerated in the legal notice in an illegal and unfair manner taking undue advantage of the situation in view of the fact that the complainant was sitting in the office. The accused also stated that he was normally keeping the cheque book of his proprietary concern in the same shop, duly signed, and the complainant had taken undue advantage of the situation and had gone even to the extent of encashing one cheque on the sly which led to bickering in the partnership but the partnership could not be dissolved as there were heavy liabilities.

5. The complainant then filed the complaint on the allegations that the said 11 cheques for a total sum of Rs.1.7 lakhs were given to the accused in consideration of the discharge of the liabilities of the accused towards verbal final settlem