JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’) has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.03.2018 in C.C.No.63 of 2017 passed by the VIII Special Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hasthinapur, Ranga Reddy District for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’).

3. For the facility, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

4. The complainant’s case in brief is that on 25.03.2016 the accused borrowed an amount of 9,00,000/- with an undertaking to repay the same within three months and executed a promissory note/Ex.P-3 in the presence of P. Narender and B. Srinivas/PWs.2 and 3; later as there was no repayment on demands, the accused issued cheque/Ex.P-1 dated 24.08.2016 bearing No.675077 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Branch for Rs. 9,00,000/-. On presentment the cheque Ex-P1 was returned with memo/Ex.P-2 dated 30.08.2016 with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’. Thereupon, statutory notice/Ex.P-4 dated 10.09.2016 was issued calling upon to clear the cheque amount through registered postal receipt/Ex.P-5 and served on the accused as per the track report/Ex.P-6. The accused got issued reply notice/Ex.P-7 dated 28.09.2016 with false averments. Thus the complaint.

5. During enquiry, the complainant got herself examined as P.W.1 and the witnesses of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Per contra, no oral or defence evidence was adduced. However, got marked Ex.D-1 photostat copy of pronote-cum-receipt executed by the accused on 15.06.2014 in favour of one P. Srinivas for Rs.8 lakhs.

6. The learned trial Court after considering the materials on record and accepting the defence held that the complainant had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence acquitted the accused.

7. In appeal, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the trial Court erred in discrediting the wedding card/Ex-P8 and the Photograph/Exs:P-9 evidencing the prior acquaintance with the accused. Further the trial Court had given undue weightage to the defence alleged transaction with her brother in the year 2014 and erred in observing that lending amount pending the civil suit between them is unnatural to the human conduct, without considering the positive evidence placed on record. Further the trial Court had gone wrong in opining on writings on the cheque and the burden to prove the financial resources to advance amounts, even without the rebuttal of presumptions by the accused.

8. In support of the pleas, the complainant placed following citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration:

(i) Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’Souza and another, (2003) 3 SCC 232, (ii) Kalamani Tex and another v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283, (iii) Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, (iv) T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari, (2015) 8 SCC 378), (v) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 1011, (vi) Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar), 2019 (4) SCC 197.

9. In the above authorities, the following aspects are projected i.e. (a) though the transaction is disputed if the signature on the cheque is established, presumption shall be in favour of the complainant and the instruction to ‘stop payment’ would also entails the liability; (b) even the instruction of ‘stop payment’ entails the liability for dishonour of cheque; (c) when a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over to the accused towards some payment and filled in by any person would also attract the presumption and liability; (d) unless the accused discharges the onus to rebut the presumption, the source of funds advancing loan