ORDER:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the petitioner/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2017 in C.C.No.139 of 2017(old C.C. No.5 of 2017) passed by the learned XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, “the appellate Court”), confirming the judgment dated 24.03.2016 in C.C.No.185 of 2015 passed by the learned VIII Special Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Hasthinapuram, Rangareddy District (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Saman Aafreen, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.3-State. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/accused. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 representing respondent No.2/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only) from the petitioner/complainant to meet his business necessities and pledged a title deed with the petitioner/complainant promising to repay the same within six (6) months. On repeated demands to repay the said amount, when the cheque for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- issued by respondent No.1 representing respondent No.2/accused was presented twice, the same was returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’ kindly contact the drawer/drawers bank and please present again”. When the petitioner/complainant issued a legal notice, dated 16.11.2016 to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 demanding to pay the cheque amount, respondent No.2/accused got issued a reply notice, dated 30.11.2016 with false averments. Therefore, the petitioner/complainant filed C.C.No.05 of 2017 before III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad subsequently it was transferred to XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and the said C.C.No.5 of 2017 was renumbered as C.C.No.139 of 2017 against respondent No.2/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “NI Act”) and the same was dismissed by the learned XXI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 31.08.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal Case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the Courts below erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective and dismissed the same. He, therefore, seeks to allow the present Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court, after careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, had rightly passed the respective judgments and hence, interference of this Court, at this stage, is unwarranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. Before the trial Court, on his behalf, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs-P1 to P8. Ex-P1 is the original cheque said to have been issued by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. Ex-P2 is the cheque return memo, dated 28.10.2010, Ex-P3 is the Original Promissory Note, dated 25.09.2015, Ex-P4 is the office copy of the legal notice, dated 15.11.2016, Ex-P5 is the postal receipts dated 16.11.2016, Ex-P6 is the postal acknowledgment cards, dated 19.11.2016, Ex.P7 is the two postal delivered reports, dated 19.11.2016, Ex-P8 is the reply dated 30.11.2016. In defence, none were examined on behalf of respondent No.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of respondents.

7. The initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt, for which respondent No.1 issued Ex-P1-cheque towards discharge of hand loan. As seen from the evidence of PW1, nowhere in the complaint and evidence affidavit of PW1 it was elicited that he is doing courier business at Film Nagar, Hyderabad and that his annual turnover in the said business is Rs.75,000/-. It is not the evidence of PW1 complainant that he has other source of income and therefore with such meager turnover it is difficult to believe that complainant was capable to