Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Akola, dt.17.11.2008 in Summary Criminal Case No.87 of 2005 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant (Original Complainant) submitted that the accused used to purchase goods on credit from the proprietary firm of the Complainant and in discharge of liability of the goods purchased on credit, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.146912 drawn on Abhinandan Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amravati Branch, Amravati for a sum of Rs.37,826/-. The cheque appears at Exh.35, dt.17.11.2004. According to the appellant, the cheque was dishonored on 19.11.2004 with remarks “payment stopped by the drawer” Memo (Exh.36) was received from the collecting Banker. Thereafter, notice dt.26.11.2004 was sent to respondent/accused demanding the sum of Rs.37,826/-in respect of the dishonuored cheque informing the accused that if payment is not made, complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be filed. It is not in dispute that the demand notice was served and reply to the demand notice was sent by the respondent/accused. 3. Reply dt.14.12.2004 was sent by the respondent/accused disputing liability for to pay the amount demanded on the ground that the two cheques – one bearing no.146912 and the another bearing no.146913, which were blank, were handed over to the Complainant through its representative Mr.Pawan Bhutada on 13.5.2004 when the accused had placed the order of goods (Agarbatis) for a consideration of Rs.21,390/-. The goods were supplied from the appellant under Bill No.509, dt.19.5.2004 and against that transaction, demand draft in the sum of Rs.21,390/-bearing No.256888, dt.17.6.2004 was sent to the Complainant. It is also contended by reply that it was only order given by the accused on 13.5.2004 when representative of the Complainant Mr.Bhutada came to Amravati and asked for the cheque as security of business. Thus, the demand notice was disputed on the ground that there was no other transaction except transaction dt.13.5.2004 between the Complainant and the accused and no other goods were purchased by the accused. It is also alleged that the Complainant must use the blank cheques and filled in the amount as per his wish without there being any liability to pay the amount. It is also alleged that the Complainant must use the blank cheques and filled in the amount as per his wish without there being any liability to pay the amount. In reply, the accused had also contended that he had asked Mr.Bhutada (representative of the Complainant) in July, 2004 to return the blank cheques, dt.15.8.2004. Under these circumstances, the accused had informed his banker to stop payment in respect of both the cheques by letter dt.19.8.2004 (Exh.54), which was a letter issued prior to presentation and dishonour of the cheque. A case was put up by the accused that the Complainant had misused the cheques which were handed over to the representative as a security in respect of the business transactions and that no cheque was issued in discharge of legally existing liability. 4. The Complainant despite reply chose to file complaint against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On behalf of the Complainant Mr.Mukesh Nanakram Jivatramani, Power of Attorney holder had filed an affifdavit, dt.7.1.2008 claiming that he is writing books of accounts and looking after daily transactions of the Complainant's business. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused, who admitted that there were obliterations in the account of the accused and also admitted that entry was taken in the register in respect of the day when cheque was issued; but, as the cheque was not honoured, entry was obliterated. Witness also admitted that, in the said account extract, the amount due from the accused was mentioned as Rs.34,780/-while witness volunteers that sum of Rs.3046/-was demanded by the accused and it was given in cash by the witness. The accused added that amount to total dues and gave the cheques in question. Thus, he denied that the two cheques bearing nos.146912 and 146913 were given by way of security. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that there was sufficient evidence regarding essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued on 17.11.2004 in the sum of Rs.37,826/-, which was dishonoured on 19.11.2004 and despite demand notice in reply thereon, the accused failed to pay the amount, but he gave false reply dt.20.12.2004. He submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have raised statutory presumptions in favour of the Complainant and ought to have punished the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent/accused submitted in support of the impugned judgment and order that the accused had not only signed reply to the demand notice but also had stopped payments in respect of two blank cheques given by way of security. The accused had entered into witness box to give evidence that he never bought goods as alleged by the Complainant. He had only one transaction with the Complainant for which demand draft was issued. According to the accused, the Complainant had transported the goods in respect of the transaction which he had with him and on 13.5.2004, Mr.Pawan Bhutada – agent of the Complainant came for collecting orders. At that time, he had demanded two blank cheques as security as the accused had one transaction dt.19.5.2004 vide Bill No.509 for a sum of Rs.21,390/-. The accused gave two blank cheques bearing nos.146912 and 146913 as security and a demand draft bearing no.256888, dt.17.6.2004 in the sum of Rs.21,390/-. Under these circumstances, since there was no any other transaction in July, 2004 when Mr.Bhutada came, he was asked by the accused to return two blank cheques given by way of security. But, they were not returned. Therefore, the accused instructed his Bank to stop payment in respect of cheques bearing nos.146912 and 146913. But the complainant misused the cheques in question and filled in the amount as per his own choice in his handwriting and prepared it in order to show that the accused was liable to pay the sum of Rs.34,780/-. The learned Advocate for the respondent contended that the Complainant sought to rely upon electronic documents as evidence which are at Exh.34 collectively in order to show that the amount of Rs.34,780/-is shown debited in the name of accused. However, the documents were most probably prepared by a Tax Consultant who also signed the documents, but no compliance was made by the Complainant so far as Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned. However, the documents were most probably prepared by a Tax Consultant who also signed the documents, but no compliance was made by the Complainant so far as Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned. Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads under: “In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, - (a) Identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section, it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.” 6. No such Certificate, as stated above, was furnished on behalf of the Complainant and therefore, the documents could not have been read in evidence. Even otherwise, according to the learned Advocate for the respondent, the accused has succeeded to show that the account is not reliable as there were admittedly obliterations made in it and to suit its own convenience, the Complainant had prepared a make believe story of hand loan in the sum of Rs.3,046/-so as to make up the difference between the alleged outstanding amount and the cheque amount. The learned Advocate for the respondent also submitted that letter dt.19.8.2004 was to stop the payment in respect of two blank cheques given by way of security vide Exh.54 addressed to the Manager of Abhinandan Cooperative Bank Ltd., Amravati which also indicates some substance in the defence of the accused. The accused has, therefore, succeeded to create atleast doubt about truth of the case of the Complainant. The accused has, therefore, succeeded to create atleast doubt about truth of the case of the Complainant. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent, the accused has, by leading evidence in defence, satisfied the trial Court upon preponderance of probabilities that his defence was reasonable and probable and the trial Court accepted the same and took proper view in order to dismiss the Complaint and acquit the accused. The learned Advocate for the respondent also invited my attention to the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that, in paras 21 to 24, the evidence in rebuttal led by the accused is dealt with in details. The learned trial Judge recorded finding of acquittal in the facts and circumstances of the case which view, it is argued that, was a proper and reasonable view and in appeal against acquittal order, such view ought not to be disturbed unless the judgment can be termed as “perverse” or unless exceptional ground is made out wherein the compelling circumstances therein requires the Appellate Court to interfere with the Judgment and Order of acquittal. 7. I have considered the impugned Judgment and Order as also the documentary evidence referred to by the learned trial Judge. The Judgment appears well reasoned and since it resulted in acquittal, presumption of innocence has strengthened further. I do not find any perversity in the impugned Judgment and Order nor observations therein can be termed as contrary to the evidence on record. The approach of the learned trial Judge was in accordance with law. No fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and Order. In the result, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.