JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the complainant challenging the acquittal of respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act" for short) by the trial Court

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. Complainant filed the complaint under Section

200 of Cr.P.C against accused, alleging that accused is his friend having known for the past 10 years. Because of this acquaintance, accused borrowed hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash on various dates as detailed below to meet his domestic and personal commitments.

4. Accused had agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. On 02.07.2015, i.e., at the time of borrowing Rs.5,00,000/-, accused has issued a post dated 05.07.2015 cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- towards principle. He promised to pay interest amount later i.e., on or before 10.07.2015. Accordingly, on 08.07.2015, when complainant presented the cheque for realization, to his utter shock and surprise, it was dishonoured on the ground "Funds insufficient". Though, complainant brought this fact to the notice of accused he did not take any steps to pay the amount due. Complainant got issued legal notice dated 25.07.2015 through RPAD. It is returned with endorsement "Door locked intimation delivered". Accused has intentionally failed to receive the legal notice and also pay the amount due and hence, the complaint.

5. After due service of summons, accused appeared and contested the case by pleading not guilty.

6. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 6.

7. During the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence lead by the complainant.

8. Accused has stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to 3.

9. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has acquitted the accused.

10. Aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court, contending that the trial Court has grossly and glaringly erred in not properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Complainant has produced reliable oral and documentary evidence to show that he has lent Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused and towards repayment of the same he has issued the subject cheque. The evidence led by the complainant prove the fact that since 10 years he is running bakery and milk business and having financial capacity to lend Rs.20,00,000/- to the accused. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the concerned police have filed 'B' report in respect of the complaint filed by the accused against complainant herein as well as one M.K.Krishna. Despite claiming that the cheque was issued to M.K.Krishna during 2013 and he has not returned the same, accused has not instructed his banker to stop payment. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order are not tenable and pray to allow the appeal, convict the accused and sentence him in accordance with law.

11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the following decisions: (i) P.Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer and Anr (P.Rasiya)1 (ii) Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh (Rajesh Jain)2

12. On the other learned counsel for respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment

1

AIR Online 2022 SC 1373 AIR Online 2023 SC 807 and order and submitted that complainant is not at all known to him and he never borrowed any loan from him. On the other hand the cheque in question was issued to one M.K.Krishna in respect of chit transaction and instead of returning the cheque he has go