The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense theory presented by the accused can create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

1. This Criminal Appeal by special leave has been preferred under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant herein on whose complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. prosecution was initiated in C.C.No.167 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam against the judgment of the said court dated 11.09.2002 acquitting the respondent herein/accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The appellant herein preferred a complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam containing the following allegations:-

On 03.04.1999, the respondent herein/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-from the appellant herein/complainant and executed a Promissory Note promising to repay the said amount in six months period together with an interest @ 18% per annum. The respondent herein/accused was paying interest as agreed for a period of six months. However, since he had not chosen to repay the principal within the agreed period of six months, the appellant herein/complainant pressurized him for making such repayment. Consequently, the respondent herein/accused issued a post dated cheque bearing the date 010. 1999 and cheque No.956347 drawn on Canara Bank, Thevur branch for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. A day before the due date i.e. on 010. 1999, the respondent/accused met the appellant herein/complainant in his residence and requested him not to present the cheque for encashment and to wait for some more time as he had not made arrangements to keep sufficient funds in his account. After having waited till 27.02.2000, the appellant herein/complainant met the respondent/accused on the said date and appraised him of the position that the cheque would become time barred if the same was not presented for encashment within six months from the date of cheque. As a result of the said appraisal, the respondent herein/accused informed the appellant herein/complainant that he could present the cheque on 28.02.2000 and encash the same. When the cheque was presented in Canara Bank, Thevur branch on 28.02.2000, it was dishonoured and returned with a dishonour note "funds insufficient". Thereafter on 11.03.2000, the appellant herein/complainant caused a statutory notice to be issued to the respondent herein/accused, which was received by him on 14.03.2000. Instead of complying with the demand made therein, the respondent herein/accused chose to issue a reply notice denying the borrowal and containing false allegations. After receiving the reply notice, the appellant herein/complainant came to know that the respondent herein/accused had given the cheque without having sufficient funds in his account, failed to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque when the dishonour of cheque was informed to him by a notice within the time stipulated in the statute and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. After recording the sworn statement of the appellant herein/complainant and following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence on a private complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam took it on file as C.C.No.167 of 2000 and issued process to the respondent herein/accused. On appearance, the respondent herein/accused was questioned regarding the allegations made against him. He denied having committed the offence alleged in the complaint. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam tried the case.

4. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant in order to substantiate the charge made by him against the respondent herein/accused in the complaint. After the recording of the evidence on the side of the complainant was over, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. During such examination once again the accused maintained that he had not committed the offence alleged in the complaint. The respondent herein/accused was examined as DW-1 an