ORDER :

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by th the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the 13 Additional Sssions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in CRA No.381/2018 reversing the judgment dated 11.05.2018 of conviction and sentence passed in RT No.505/2016 by the JMFC, Bhopal, District Bhopal, whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had been convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo six months RI and to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant, failing which to undergo further three months RI.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is a friendly relationship between the complainant and the accused and for his personal needs, the accused had asked for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. Keeping in view the friendly relationship, the accused gave the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused on 24.04.2015 as a loan. While giving the said amount, the accused had told the complainant that he would return the said amount to him within 06 months. A loan agreement was executed in respect of the said loan dated 24.04.2015. When the accused did not return the said amount within 06 months, on making a demand by the complainant, the accused issued two cheques, bearing numbers 039296 and 039297, dated September 24, 2015 and October 24, 2015, respectively, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kolar Branch, Bhopal, in favor of the complainant. When the complainant presented these cheques to his bank, they were returned unpaid on November 25, 2015, with the remark "insufficient funds." The complainant contacted the accused on phone and informed him of the same, the accused started verbally abusing him and refused to return the money. Consequently, on December 10, 2015, the complainant, through his advocate, sent a legal notice to the accused via registered post with acknowledgment due, demanding the cheque amount. The accused failed to return the legally recoverable amount of debt within the stipulated time period, and knowing that his account had insufficient funds, he intentionally issued cheques from an account with insufficient funds to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused in court.

4. The accused/respondent has denied committing the alleged offence and has expressed his intention to defend himself.

5. Statement of the witness/complainant Ramesh Kumar Mehra (PW-1) has been recorded and the documents Exs.P/1 to P/8 have been exhibited.

6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, vide judgment dated 11.05.2018 convicted the accused under Sections 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. with default stipulation. In addition, the accused was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards expenses to the complainant under the provision of Section 359 of Cr.P.C.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2018 has set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, allowed the appeal and eventually acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this appeal.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant that the learned JMFC has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him but the learned appellate Court has erroneously acquitted the accused on the ground that the cheques were given as security. It is also submitted that as per the averments made in the complaint, the cheques were given afte