ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant/complainant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed in Crl.Appeal No.1216/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 08.09.2016/01.10.2016 convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo SI for six months, to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.3 lakhs) and in default of which to further undergo SI for six months, has been set aside and the respondent has been acquitted of all charges.

2. The appellant is said to have given Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent as family loan which was promised to be returned within two months. The complaint filed by the appellant inter-alia states that Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the appellant by the respondent towards the discharge of the liability against the aforesaid family loan. The cheque in question of Rs.3 lakhs, i.e. the balance amount, when presented before the bank by the appellant, was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. A legal notice dated 15.04.2009 was sent through registered A.D post and UPC on 17.04.2009. Since no payment was made by the respondent, the subject complaint was lodged by the appellant.

3. The Trial Court, on perusal of the deposition of the witnesses and the records of the case, was of the view that there was existence of an enforceable debt, in discharge of which the subject cheque was issued by the respondent which was dishonoured. The respondent was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments vide judgment dated 08.09.2016 referred to above and by order dated 01.10.2016, he was sentenced to undergo SI for six months, to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.3 lakhs) and in default of which to further undergo SI for six months.

4. Before the lower Appellate Court, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that in the complaint, the appellant had talked about giving family loan of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent, but in the cross- examination before the Trial Court, she changed her stand and said that the amount was actually paid for purchasing a flat from the respondent. The other ground which was raised before the lower Appellate Court was that there was no legal notice/demand notice issued by the appellant in respect of the cheque; there was no agreement, receipt of cash or any other document in support of the contention of the appellant of having paid such amount towards purchase of flat; a wrong cheque number was stated in the complaint which was never produced nor proved and that the respondent had paid substantial amount to the appellant and her husband, even prior to the presentation of the cheque in question in the bank. The respondent had argued that the appellant could not specify the date, time and place of the grant of loan and that a complaint was made by the respondent on 24.08.2008 about missing of five cheques, one being the subject cheque, whereas the date of issuance of the subject cheque was 15.11.2008 i.e after the report regarding missing of such cheque was lodged by the respondent.

5. The lower Appellate Court accepted the arguments of the respondent herein, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent of all charges vide judgment dated 29.11.2016.

6. The cheque in question does bear the signature of the respondent and, therefore, there is an initial presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of the cheque having been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and the existence of such a debt.

7. That a wrong cheque number was stated in the complaint may not be the end-all and be-all of the case of the appellant/complainant. The other factors also are required to be seen to decide as to whether the appellant/complainant has been able to prove his case. The original cheque was placed before the Trial Court and the same was proved as Exh.CW/A. Thus the wrong number of the