JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J.-This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.9.2007 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 605 of 2004/Trial No. 731 of 2007, whereby, the Court below has held that the complainant has not been able to prove the allegation beyond the shadows of all reasonable doubts against this accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, acquitted the respondent-accused from the said charge. 2. The case of the appellant-complainant as made out in the complaint petition filed by him in the Court below, is that the complainant and the accused were good friends and were doing iron scrap business jointly and later on, it was decided between them that if the accused would pay the invested share amount to the complainant, the complainant will leave his joint business. Accordingly, the accused paid the said amount to the complainant on 15.3.2004 through cheque bearing no. 7198002, drawn upon the Canara Bank, Hazaribagh Branch, for a sum of Rupees Seven Lakhs. The said cheque was produced before the Bank on 24.6.2004 by the complainant, but the same was returned unpaid by the Bank with the certificate "Fund Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice of demand to the accused with a request to pay the amount within 15 days and as the accused refused to make the payment of the amount even acknowledging the receipt of the notice, the said complaint petition was filed on 24.7.2004. 3. Upon examination of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and finding the prima facie case against the accused, the process was issued to the accused and in course of trial, evidences were adduced by both the sides. Ultimately, upon adjudication of the case, the case resulted in acquittal of the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. In course of trial, the complainant had examined himself as C.W. 1, wherein he has deposed about his case and has proved the cheque which was marked as Exhibit-1, the Bank's memo of returning the cheque was also proved as Exhibit-2; 'the legal notice was proved as Exhibit-3, the postal receipt of sending the notice through registered post was proved as Exhibit-4 and the acknowledgment thereof was proved as Exhibit-5, whereupon, the signature of the accused was proved as Exhibit-5/1. 5. 5. From the cross-examination of this witness, it appears that the complainant has admitted that he had separated the business from the accused on 14.3.2004 and on the next day, he was given the cheque. He has stated that apart from the cheque amount, there was no other due and no other person had knowledge about the separation of the business. Though this witness had admitted in his cross-examination that prior to the filing this case, the complainant had filed another complaint case against the accused, but he has denied that in the said complaint case, he had made out the case that upon getting Rs. 2,50,000/- he separated his business from the accused and there was no other dues. He has also denied that in course of his evidence in another complaint case, he has stated that after getting Rs. 2,50,000/- he had separated himself from the firm and there was no other dues. But he has admitted to have deposed in the said case that he had taken six cheques from the accused while separating from the firm and thereafter, he had no concern with the business of the accused. 6. The complainant has also examined the C.W. 2 namely Inder Chand Jaiswal and C.W. 3 namely Vijay Krishna Vidyarthi, the handwriting expert and the defence has also examined another handwriting expert as D.W. 1 namely, Chandra Shekhar Jourihar, but the •evidence of both these handwriting experts have been disbelieved by the Trial Court for valid reasons, which need not be discussed, nor the same have been pressed in course of argument in this appeal. 7. It may be stated here that the defence of the respondent accused in the present case is that the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant against any legally enforceable debt or liability. The further defence of the accused is that while separating the business, the accused had given six cheques to the complainant, total amounting Rs. 2,50,000/- which were also dishonored and a complaint case was filed by the complainant being complaint case no. 604 of 2004 which was also filed on the same date i.e. on 24.7.2004. The case of the complainant in the said complaint case is specifically that the complainant left the joint business on the assurance of the accused that he will be paid his invested amount of Rs. 604 of 2004 which was also filed on the same date i.e. on 24.7.2004. The case of the complainant in the said complaint case is specifically that the complainant left the joint business on the assurance of the accused that he will be paid his invested amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and six cheques were given to the complainant, total amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. It appears from the impugned judgment itself that in the said complaint case being complaint case no. 604 of 2004, the accused was found guilty and was convicted for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Against which, a Revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed and the matter is pending in the High Court. 8. In order to rebut the case of the complainant, the accused has brought an record the certified copies of the complaint case being Complaint Case No. 604 of 2004 which was marked as Exhibit 'A,' as also the deposition of the complainant, Bhaskar Gupta in the said complaint case no. 604 of 2004 which was also marked as Exhibit 'B'. The complaint petition as contained in Exhibit 'A' clearly shows that the complainant specifically stated in the said complaint petition that the complainant left the joint business on the assurance of the accused that he will be paid his invested amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, whereupon, six cheques were issued to the complainant by the accused which were produced in the Bank and the same were dishonored and after completing the legal formalities, the said complaint petition was filed in the Court on the same day on which the present complaint was filed. From perusal of the deposition of the complainant in the said complaint case no. 604 of 2004 which has been marked as Exhibit 'B', it is apparent that the complainant had supported his case in the said complaint case, stating that they had agreed to separate their business on getting back the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- invested by the complainant, which the complainant received from the accused by way of six cheques. However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had invested Rupees Ten Lakhs in the said business and the accused had also invested Rupees Ten Lakhs. 2,50,000/- invested by the complainant, which the complainant received from the accused by way of six cheques. However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had invested Rupees Ten Lakhs in the said business and the accused had also invested Rupees Ten Lakhs. He has again admitted in his cross-examination that no account of the business was maintained and he has no document to prove that he had invested Rupees Ten Lakhs in the business. 9. However, in the present case, it has nowhere been stated in the complaint petition that the complainant had invested Repees Ten Lakhs in the said business, nor the complainant has made out any such case. Even in his deposition, the complainant C.W. 1, Bhaskar Gupta has not stated anywhere in the examination-in-chief that he had invested Rupees Ten Lakhs in the said business. However, in his further cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had invested Rs. Ten Lakhs, but this investment was not disclosed to the Income Tax Department, even though he is an income tax payee. He has also stated that he had no knowledge whether the firm was registered or not. 10. Thus, from perusal of the evidence brought on record, it is apparent that in the present complaint case no. 605 of 2004, the complainant had stated that both the parties decided to separate their business if the accused paid him the invested share amount and accordingly, the accused paid him an amount of Rs. Seven Lakhs through the cheque, in question, on 15.3.2004. In another case i.e. complaint case no. 604 of 2004, the complainant has made out a case that the complainant left the joint business on the assurance of the accused that he will be paid his invested amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In neither of these cases, it has ever been stated by the complainant that he had made the investment of Rupees Ten Lakhs as his share in the business, which fact he has disclosed in his cross-examination only. 11. The Court below has disbelieved the complainant's case of investing Rupees Ten Lakhs with the following reasoning:- "According to case no. 604/2004 of the complainant he had got only Rs. 2,50,000/- his invested amount, meaning thereby that total amount was Rs. 11. The Court below has disbelieved the complainant's case of investing Rupees Ten Lakhs with the following reasoning:- "According to case no. 604/2004 of the complainant he had got only Rs. 2,50,000/- his invested amount, meaning thereby that total amount was Rs. 5,00,000/- of both partners but if the version of complainant, given in this case, is taken to be true, the total invested amount of both the partners would be to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Needless to say that for the purpose of plan of business with Rs. 20,00 000/- registration before the Sales Tax and obtaining BST, CST number is essential and such business without such registration is illegal and punishable too. According to complainant his evidence para no. 19 he did not disclose the above amount to the Income Tax Department which is also an offence under the Income Tax Act. For the purpose of adjudication of this point it appears relevant to state that with respect to existence of business not a single cheat of paper, nor any account nor any register nor any cash book nor any transaction paper has been filed before this Court to show that actually there was transaction between the parties with investment of Rs. 20,00,000/-. According to N.I. Act, "legally enforceable" means "any amount, for which the complainant has right to get enforce its realization through the legal process". In the present case, when the complainant himself has stated that there was no disclosure before the Income Tax Department, which was mandatory, for him, it cannot be said that the debt was legally enforceable." 12. It may be stated here that though the Court below has also held that the complainant has also not be able to prove beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts that actually, the cheque was presented before the Bank for encashment and it bounced due to insufficient fund, inasmuch as on the Bank Return Memo, there was no official mark or seal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted that the impugned order of acquittal is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the complainant had been able to prove his case that the cheque for Rs. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted that the impugned order of acquittal is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the complainant had been able to prove his case that the cheque for Rs. Seven Lakhs was issued in favour of the complainant by the accused on 15.3.2004, which was produced in the Bank by the complainant within time i.e. on 24.6.2004 and the same was returned unpaid by the Bank with the certificate 'Fund Insufficient'. Thereafter, within the stipulated time, the demand notice was given to the accused and as the accused refused to make the payment to the complainant, the complaint petition was filed within the prescribed period on 24.7.2004. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is a fit case in which the accused ought to have been convicted and sentence by the Court below. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused on the other hand has submitted that the complainant had failed to prove the case in the Court below inasmuch as, in one case filed by the complainant against the accused the case of the complainant was that he had separated the business after getting his entire dues of Rs. 2,50,000/- whereas, in the present case the complainant has made out the case that he had separated his business after taking his share of Rs. Seven Lakhs which was invested by him. During the trial, the complainant has stated that he had actually invested Rs. Ten Lakhs as his share and the accused had also invested Rs. Ten Lakhs as his share, but this fact has not been stated in the complaint petition filed by the complainant. It is also admitted by the complainant that he had not disclosed the said investment to the Income Tax Department and has further admitted in his cross-examination that no book of account was being maintained and he had no document to prove his case that he had made the investment of Rs. Ten Lakhs in the business. 15. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the respondent-accused has been able to discharge the onus us of rebutting the presumption against him and to create a reasonable doubt in the complaint case. Ten Lakhs in the business. 15. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the respondent-accused has been able to discharge the onus us of rebutting the presumption against him and to create a reasonable doubt in the complaint case. Learned counsel has submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in case, where two views of the evidence were possible, the High Court ought not interfere with the order of acquittal. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hallu and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1936 . Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 16. After having heard the learned counsel for both sides and upon going through the records, I find that the respondent accused has been able to rebut the presumption against him and to create a reasonable doubt in the complaint case. Rather this is a case in which the complainant himself has not come to the Court with clean hands. The case of the complainant that he had invested Rs. Ten Lakhs in the business, is not there in his complaint petition. He has only admitted in his cross-examination that he had invested Rs. Ten Lakhs in the business, but again he had stated that he has no document to prove his case. 17. In my considered view, the respondent-accused has been able to demolish the case of the complainant by proving the complaint petition and the deposition of the complainant in complaint case no. 604 of 2004, which clearly show that the stand of the complainant in the present case and in the said complaint case no. 604 of 2004, which were filed on the same date, were quite contrary and in both the cases the very foundation of the case of the complainant that he had invested Rs. Ten Lakhs in the said business was concealed by the complainant. 18. In Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal, reported in (1993)3 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law as follows:- "12. Ten Lakhs in the said business was concealed by the complainant. 18. In Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal, reported in (1993)3 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law as follows:- "12. Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise, that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the' same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the nonexistence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disapprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on-record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on-record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist. * * * * * * * *" (Emphasis supplied) 19. The aforesaid decision has been relied upon again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G Hegde, reported in (2008)4 SCC 54 , which reads as follows:- "34. Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of the accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies." 20. Both the aforementioned decisions have been approvingly cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, as reported in 2010(3) JCR 16 (SC) [: 2010(3) JLJR (SC)117]. The law laid down as above, is fully applicable to the facts of this case. 21. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that the respondent-accused has been able to make out a reasonable defence during the trial in the Court below, rebutting the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused was rightly acquitted by the Court below. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the same cannot be interfered with. 22. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.