JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed by the original complainant thereby challenging dismissal of her complaint and acquittal of the respondent by the learned Magistrate at Mapusa for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Heard Mr. Pavithran A.V., learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Galileo Teles, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2.

3. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court, the impugned judgment and more specifically the evidence.

4. The point for determination is as under together with my evidence against it.

Whether the learned Magistrate committed patent error in accepting the so-called evidence of the respondent as rebuttal evidence, to rebut presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

5. In a nutshell, the facts leading to the present proceedings are as under.

6. The appellant claimed that her deceased husband advanced friendly loan to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- by issuing a demand draft, in presence of PW2. In discharge of such