Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.— This is the complainant’s appeal against acquittal of the accused/1st respondent recorded by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C. No.439 of 2005 by judgment dated 10.2.2009. The complainant/appellant filed complaint in the lower Court against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short the Act). Most of the facts in this appeal are not in dispute. The only ground on which the lower Court acquitted the accused is that the complaint was premature.

2. Thus, the only point which arises for determination in this appeal is:

Whether the complaint in this case was premature.

3. The accused gave Ex. P3 cheque dated 11.4.2005 to the complainant for Rs.15,00,000. It is stated to be a post-dated cheque issued by the accused after borrowing Rs.15,00,000 from the complainant, under Ex. P1 promissory note and Ex. P2 undertaking letter and receipt-cum-acknowledgment, When, the, complainant presented the cheque for encashment after the date mentioned on it, it was dishonoured by banker of the accused on the ground of closure of account. Ex. P4 is cheque return memo dated 15.