HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

1. Appellant in the above appeals is the complainant in C.C. No. 639/2003 and 640/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Hosdurg. Complaints were filed against the same accused K. Sundara Rajan for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant is aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) I, Kasaragod in Criminal Appeal Nos. 391/2007 and 392/2007. The learned Magistrate found that the accused committed offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By the common order dated 11-10-2007 in C.C. Nos. 639 & 640/2003 the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs each to the complainant u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 4 months. The Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial court, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused and the accused in both cases were acquitted. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the complainant and accused as arrayed in the complaint. The prosecution case is as follows:

The accused is familiar to the complainant from 1996 onwards. He is a close friend of her husband and is a habitual visitor to her house. The complainant's husband died on 29-9-2002. Accused used to borrow money from her husband and from the complainant. During the period 1998-2001 the accused borrowed several lakhs of rupees from them. The complainant and her husband advanced the amounts by means of crossed cheque from her account as well as the account of her husband. At the time of the death of her husband the amount due to her from the accused was Rs. 10 lakhs. After the death of the complainant's husband, she requested the accused to pay the amount due. Hence, on 6-6-2003 the accused handed over two crossed cheques (Exts. P-1 and P-6) for Rs. 5 lakhs each drawn from the City Union Bank Ltd., Chennai from out of the account maintained by the accused in the aforesaid bank. The cheques issued by the accused were presented by the complainant for collection through her bank at Kanhangad on 10-6-2003. The cheques were returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' in the account of the accused. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding money and informing the bouncing of the cheques. Accused received the notice. He did not pay the amount nor send any reply.

2. The trial court ordered joint trial of both the complaints. Complainant adduced evidence as RW. 1 and Exts. P-1 to P-12 were marked on her behalf. Accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext. D-1 was marked on behalf of the accused. Accused denied the transaction. The contention raised by the accused in the written statement is that he was forced to sign the cheques by the City Commissioner of Police, Chennai at the instance of the complainant. It is contended by the accused that there is no presumption envisaged u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As P.W. 1 the complainant testified that the accused was close friend of her husband, that he used to come her home frequently, that her husband died on 29-9-2002, that loan was advanced by her and her husband, that at the time of the death of her husband, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was due from the accused and that for repayment of the amount due the accused handed over Exts. P-1 and P-6 cheques to her. Dishonour memos were marked as Exts. P-2, P-3, P-7 and P-8. Copies of lawyer notices were marked as Exts. P-4, and P-9. Postal acknowledgment cards were marked as Ext. P-5 and P-10 respectively in C.C. No. 639/2003 and 640/2003.

3. Complainant testified before the court below that huge amounts were advanced to the accused during the period from 1998 to 2001. According to her, at the time of the death of her husband, a