J U D G M E N T

Being aggrieved by acquittal of respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act'), the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

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

3. It is the case of the complainant that for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs due to the complainant, accused has issued cheque dated 14.08.2012 drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Puttur Branch with an assurance of prompt payment. When complainant presented the cheque for collection through his account in Corporation Bank, Darbe Branch, Puttur, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as per memo dated 17.08.2012 of State Bank of Mysuru and dated 21.08.2012 of Corporation Bank. In this regard complainant got issued legal notice dated 25.08.2012. Though duly served with notice, accused has neither paid the amount due nor sent any reply and hence, the complaint.

4. After due service of summons, accused appeared through counsel and contested the matter.

5. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove the allegations against accused, complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2. He has relied upon Ex.P1 to 5 and Ex.C1.

7. During the course of statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the complainant.

8. In fact accused has stepped into the witness box and given evidence as DW-1 and examined one witness as DW-2. He has relied upon Ex.D1.

9. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.8 lakhs which is double the amount of cheque with default sentence.

10. Aggrieved by the same, accused filed appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.5022/2017. Vide impugned judgment and order, it came to be allowed and the judgment and order of the trial Court was set aside and thereby accused was acquitted.

11. Aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court contending that impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court is illegal and improper. It ought not to have interfered with the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial Court. The observation of the Sessions Court that complainant has suppressed true facts by not whispering the date of loan transaction, is contrary to the legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act. During the cross-examination of PW-1 the counsel for accused has elicited the source of income of the complainant. The Sessions Court has given undue importance to certain statements of complainant. It is required to be appreciated in the light of entire evidence.

11.1 The Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the repayment of Rs.8 lakhs is altogether a different transaction. The complainant was not cross- examined with regard to Ex.D1. It has erred in doubting the hand loan transaction pertaining to Ex.P1, when accused was still due of Rs.5 lakhs as per Ex.D1. The accused has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. There were no justifiable grounds for the Sessions Court to interfere with well reasoned judgment of the trial Court and pray to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court and restore that of the trial Court.

12. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Anil Hada Vs. India Acrylic Ltd. (Anil Hada)1 (ii) K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappa (K.N.Beena)2

1

AIR 2000 145 SC AIR 2001 SC 2895 (iii) L.Mohan Vs. Mohan Naidu (L.Mohan)3 (iv) M/s MMTC and Anr. Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd and Anr. (M/s MMTC Ltd)4 (v) H.Maregowda and etc Vs. Thippamma and Ors.

(H.Maregowda)5 (vi) Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (Rohitbhai)6

13. On the other hand learned counsel for accused has supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that it is not in dispute that accused offered to sell certain