Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N I Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the complainant and the accused had cordial relations. The complainant advanced anf amount of ₹57,000/- to the accused on his request, and the accused promised to return the amount within 20 days. Sthe issued a cheque of ₹57,000/- in the complainant’s favour to discharge her liability. The complainant presented the cheque before the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant told the accused about this fact, and she promised to return the amount, but she failed to do so. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking her to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to her for the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the complainant examined himself (HCW-1) and Pankaj Sharma (CW-2).

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), admitted that she had a cordial relationship with the complainant’s family. She denied the rest of theu complainant’s case. She stated that she had not maintainedo any account in Punjab National Bank and did not have anyC cheque book. She came to know about the present case after receiving the summons from the Court. She had not received any money from the complainant and is not liable to repay any amount. She examined Pardeep Sharma (RW-1) in her defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the accused suggested to the complainant in his cross-examination that she had lost the cheque and reported the matter to the police, Post Kala Amb. She failed to establish this defence by examining any witness or producing any document. She had also not taken any steps to stop the payment of the cheque. She did not state in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C that she had lost the cheque which was misused by the complainant. Therefore, the plea taken by the accused was not probable. The statement of the defence witness proved that the signatures on the cheque and the specimen signatures in the bank were different. This statement rebutted the fpresumption attached to the cheque. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned trial Court had failed to properly appreciate