Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties on

both sides, the same is taken-up for final disposal.

2.

The complainant has filed this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 07.04.2017 passed by the XXII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in

CC No.13012/2016, whereby the learned Magistrate has

acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (8NI Act9 for

short).

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

shall be referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the trial Court.

4.

The factual matrix leading to the case is that,

the complainant and accused are friends and during last

3

week of October-2015, the accused has approached the

complainant for financial assistance to the tune of

Rs.4,00,000/- by assuring repayment within three months

from the date of borrowal. As per the request of accused,

the complainant has advanced Rs.4,00,000/- as hand-loan

in the first week of November, 2015. When the

complainant has demanded for repayment, the accused has

issued a cheque dated 11.02.2016 for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- and when the said cheque came to be

presented

to

the

Bank,

it

was

bounced

with

an

endorsement 8Account Closed9. Thereafter a legal notice

came to be issued to accused and the same was served, but

accused has failed to reply the said legal notice and hence,

this complaint came to be lodged.

5.

After recording the sworn statement of the

complainant, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance

of alleged offence and issued process against the accused.

The accused has appeared through her counsel and was

4

enlarged on bail. She has also denied the accusation made

against her.

6.

The complainant was got examined herself as

PW.1 and placed reliance on Nine documents marked at

Exs. P1 to P9. After conclusion of evidence of the

complainant, the statement of accused under Section 313

of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( 8Cr.P.C.9 for short) was

recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating

evidence appearing against her in the case of prosecution.

The case of accused is of total denial. Accused was also got

herself examined as DW.1.

7.

After hearing arguments advanced by the

learned counsels appearing for the parties on both sides,

the learned Magistrate found that the complainant has

failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act

and thereby acquitted the accused the offence punishable

under Section 138 of N.I Act. Being aggrieved by this

judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed this appeal.

5

8.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsels appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

Perused the records.

9.

Smt. K.L. Sujatha, learned counsel for the

appellant would contend that the impugned judgment is

against the materials on record and the same is liable to be

set aside, as it is based on assumptions and presumptions.

She would further contend that the trial Court has not

properly applied its mind and has failed to appreciate the

oral and documentary evidence placed before it. She would

also contend that the trial Court has failed to give an

opportunity to the complainant to cross-examine DW.1 and

as such, the judgment of acquittal is highly illegal and

hence, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-

accused

would

support

the

judgment

of

acquittal

contending that the complainant has failed to prove the fact

6

of advancement of loan and that there exist any legally

enforceable debt. He would further contend that the trial

Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence placed before it and arrived at a just decision of

acquitting the respondent herein and as such, the judgment

of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court.

Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the appeal.

11. The records of trial Court