The burden of proof regarding consideration for a dishonoured cheque lies with the accused, and the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable.

Heard both sides.

2. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 07.08.2015 in STC No.233 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court) Hosur.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while passing the Impugned Judgment in STC No.233 of 2014 dated 07.08.2015 at Paragraph No.14 had interalia observed that on perusal of the case cheque it comes to be known that the signature of the Respondent/ Accused was in one colour ink and the Complainant's name and Amount were in different ink and if the cheque was written by the Respondent/Accused in two different colour ink pens and given by him, there was no possibility to do like that and that the complainant had not established that the Respondent had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ultimately found not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,

4. Assailing the validity, legality and correctness of the Judgment of acquittal dated 07.08.2015 in STC No.233 of 2014 passed by the trial court, the Appellant/Complainant, as an aggrieved person has preferred the present Criminal Appeal primarily contending that the trial court had committed an error in disbelieving the case of the Appellant/Complainant because of the fact that the Appellant/Complainant as P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that he was not aware of the full particulars of the Respondent/Accused such as his wife's name, date of marriage, place of marriage, children name etc., without taking note of the very essential fact that these particulars/details are very much irrelevant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial court ought to have drawn presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act in regard to the passing of consideration when the Respondent/Accused had not disputed his signature nor took any step to obtain expert opinion nor examined any witnesses to refute the said presumption.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the trial court ought to have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and held that the Respondent/Accused received the amount as mentioned by the Appellant/Complainant by ignoring the minor discrepancies in their depositions.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes an emphatic plea that the trial court should not have disbelieved the case of the Appellant/Complainant just because the cheque was issued on the due date in April 2014 with post dated 07.07.2014, when in Law, there is no prohibition for issuing post dated cheque.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the trial court ought not to have been made an observation in the Judgment that the Appellant/Complainant could have given such a huge sum of Rs.14,20,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) without any document.

9. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent/Accused is known to the Appellant/Complainant as a friend and only at his request, the Appellant gave a cheque amount for business of the Respondent/Accused, based on his promise to repay the sum within three months. In fact the said practice is usual in the business circle.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner comes out with a stand that the trial had committed an error in disbelieving the loan amount given by the Appellant/Complainant to the Respondent/Accused merely because he had not produced any documentary evidence to establish his oral evidence that he pledged the Jewels for Rs.4,20,000/- and gave it to the Respondent/Accused by adding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) which was held by him in cash.

11. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the trial court on an appreciation of entire oral documentary evidence available on record and al