The prosecution initiated by the appellant/complainant against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.

2. According to the complainant, for the amount borrowed from the complainant, the accused issued a cheque, Ext.P1, drawn on 18.6.1997. It was presented to the bankers on the next day. By Ext.P2 it was dishonored on the ground that the funds were insufficient. On 20.6.1997 Ext.P3 notice was issued. Though it was accepted on 26.6.1997 by the accused, the accused did not either repay the amount or send a reply. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on 7.8.1997.

3. The court below found that the complainant had, through his own evidence and Ext.P1, proved the issuance of the cheque for an amount of Rs.80,000/-towards the loan availed of by the accused. In spite of that, the court below found that necessary ingredients of the offence alleged had not been made out and that by mere proof of Ext.P1 cheque, the contents thereon had not been proved.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the said finding is totally perverse. When the cheque has been proved and it was found that the cheque has been issued by the accused, in the absence of rebuttal of presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Act, the accused shall have to be found guilty of the offence. The acquittal is, therefore, unjustified.

5. It is submitted by the accused that merely because of the issuance of the cheque and bouncing of the same, no offence is really made out. It should have been proved to be a legally enforceable debt. The complainant could not proved that there was a legally enforceable debt against the accused.

6. The court below had very categorically found that the complainant was successful in proving, on the strength of the evidence of PW.1 and Ext.P1, that cheque has been issued in discharge of an amount of Rs.80,000/- due as loan availed of by the accused. It was further proved that the cheque has been presented in time and there was a demand to pay the amount, consequent on bouncing of the cheque. In such circumstances, in the absence of any other evidence in rebuttal of the presumptions available in favour of the complainant, the acquittal, on the ground that proof of Ext.P1 does not include the proof of the contents of Ext.P1 is totally unjustified. In this respect, it has to be borne in mind that the case of the accused herself was that she had issued the cheque as a security in respect of the transaction between her husband and the complainant. Now, on the strength of a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in I.C.D.S. Ltd v. Beena Shabeer {2002 (3) K.LT 218), it is contended that even a cheque issued by the wife as a guarantee for the due payment of the installments in respect of a vehicle loan was found to be duly supported by consideration. Hence, going by the case of the accused, an offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out.

7. Hence, this is a case where the order of acquittal has to be reversed. As there is no other contention, necessarily, the reversal of acquittal shall end in conviction as well. The amount of the cheque is Rs.80,000/-.

8. Accordingly, the accused/respondent is found guilty and she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a day until the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.85,000/- within a period of two months. The court below shall ensure that the aforesaid sentence is suffered by the accused. The non-payment of the compensation shall result in simple imprisonment for three months. The amount, if realized, shall be paid to the complainant.

Appeal is disposed of as above.