VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. At the time of hearing of the leave petition, the Court was inclined to grant leave and accordingly, with the consent of parties, the arguments in appeal were heard and judgment reserved.

2. Accordingly, the registry is directed to register and number the appeal.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.09.2014 passed by Sh. Bharat Chugh, Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 6910 of 2012, titled M/s. Anu Products Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. Raj Agro Tech. By the impugned judgment, the learned MM has held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) as alleged by the complainant in its complaint is not made out against the respondent/accused and, therefore, the accused has been acquitted.

4. The appellant/complainant company is engaged in the business of manufacture of insecticides and pesticides. The respondent/accused Shashi Sharma is the proprietor of Raj Agro Tech, who became a distributor of the appellant’s products. The complainant claimed that during the course of their business dealings, a sum of Rs. 94,143/- became due from the accused as on 17.08.2012. In discharge of the said debt/liability, the accused issued a cheque no. 552091 dated 21.08.2012 for a sum of Rs. 94,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Aligarh, U.P. (the cheque in question). The said cheque was dishonoured upon presentation vide return memo dated 29.08.2012. Consequently, a legal notice of demand was issued by the complainant. As the payment was not made, the aforesaid complaint under section 138 of NI Act was preferred.

5. The complainant produced Sh. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, its AR as CW-1, who filed his affidavit by way of evidence. He led in evidence and exhibited several documents.

6. Upon being summoned, the statement of the accused under section 251 Cr. P.C. was recorded. She admitted that the cheque Ex. CW-1/3 was drawn on the bank account of Raj Agro Tech and bears her signature. She stated that she had not filled in all the columns of the cheque Ex. CW-1/3. She stated that the cheque in question had been issued to the complainant as security for purchase of material. She also stated that she had made payment of Rs. 52,000/- by way of cheque and cash. She denied receipt of the legal demand notice. She admitted that at the time of dishonour of the cheque in question, her bank account did not have sufficient amount. She opted to lead defence evidence.

7. The accused moved an application under section 145 Cr. P.C. to seek leave to cross examine the complainants witness. However, this application of the accused was rejected by the learned MM on 30.08.2013 by placing reliance on the decision in Rajesh Aggarwal vs. State of Delhi, (2010) 171 DLT 51. The accused preferred a revision petition under section 397 and 399 Cr PC vide criminal revision no. 139 of 2013 to assail the said order dated 30.08.2013. However, that revision petition was also dismissed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS-02, (Central), Delhi on 27.01.2014.

8. Thereafter, the accused led evidence of two witnesses. She examined herself, i.e. accused no. 2 Shashi Sharma as DW-1, and her husband Babu Ram Sharma as DW-3.

9. The learned MM held that the accused has succeeded in overthrowing the presumption of consideration vis-a-vis the cheque in question, i.e. of the existence of debt, on the premise that there were some inherent flaws in the case of the complainant which greatly probablised the hypothesis of the cheque having been issued as security, and subsequently misused by the complainant.

10. During the cross examination of DW-1, she was confronted with the application for the appointment/confirmation of distributor/dealer of Anu Products Ltd., which was marked as Ex. CX-1. Ex. CX-1 contained an acknowledgment by the complainant that it had received a security of Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 534611 while confirming the appointment of the accuse