This appeal is filed by the complainant-appellant

challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 03.09.2012,

passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer,

Fast Track Court-III, Hosapete, in Crl.A.No.49/2012,

whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

21.03.2012, passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC, Hosapete, in C.C.No.288/2011, against the accused-

respondent herein for the offence punishable under section

138 of the of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by

acquitting him.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original rankings occupied by them

before the Trial Court.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

as under:

- 3 -

a)

The complainant is a Government Teacher and

an agriculturist. The accused is also a Lecturer in

Government Junior College, Ballari. According to the

complainant, on 19.06.2009 accused borrowed a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a post

dated

cheque

for

a

sum

of

Rs.6,00,000/-

dated

19.08.2009 towards repayment of the said debt. On

presentation of the said chqeque, it came to be

dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the complainant

has got issued a legal notice, but the accused replied with

false grounds and failed to make repayment. Hence, he

filed a complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the

accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

b)

After the complaint being lodged, the learned

Magistrate

has

recorded

the

sworn

statement

of

complainant and issued process against the accused by

taking cognizance. The accused has appeared and was

enlarged on bail. The accusation was read over and

explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty. The

- 4 -

complainant was examined himself as PW.1 and placed

reliance on seven documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7.

Then the statement of accused under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied the

incriminating evidence appearing against him. Further, the

accused got examined himself as DW.1 and his wife was

examined as DW.2. Two witnesses were also examined as

DW.3 and DW.4. He placed reliance on two documents at

Ex.D.1 and D.2.

c)

After hearing the arguments and appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary

evidence,

the

learned

Magistrate has convicted the accused by imposing fine of

Rs.10,000/-

and

in

default

to

undergo

simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed

him to pay the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the

complainant.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

judgment

of

conviction and order of sentence, the accused has

preferred Crl.A.No.49/2012, on the file of Fast Track

Court-III, Hosapete and the learned Sessions Judge after

re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,

- 5 -

allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the impugned

judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate

and acquitted the accused of the charge under section 138

of the of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being

aggrieved by this judgment, the complainant is before this

Court by way of this appeal.

4.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for appellant-complainant and learned counsel for

respondent-accused. Perused the records.

5.

Learned counsel for appellant would contend

that the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the

judgment of conviction without assigning proper reasons.

He would also contend that there is admission by DW.2

regarding receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- by accused and the said

admission came to be ignored. It is further urged that the

complainant was a Government servant and he was also

having agricultural income and there is no question of

disputing his financial status. He would also assert that the

signature on the cheque came to be admitted and hence

the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption

- 6 -

under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881, which he failed. Hence he would contend th