JUDGMENT : 1. Complainant is in appeal. His complaint filed under Sec.138 of N.I.Act ended in acquittal. Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.4.1999 was for Rs.4 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that he had lent Rs.4 lakhs to the accused in December, 1998 and when he requested for return of the amount the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.4.1999. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. On receipt of the memo, statutory notice was sent. The accused failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed. 2. Before the court below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Ext.D1 the certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in C.C.No.1376/2000 of J.F.C.M.-I, Ernakulam was marked on behalf of the defence. Learned Magistrate found that there is no legal evidence to prove the transaction alleged by the complainant. It was also found that the evidence given by PW1 before the court is inconsistent with his case in C.C.No.1376/2000. Hence, the accused was acquitted. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the accused does not dispute the fact that Ext.P1 bears his signature and if so, the burden is on the accused to discharge the presumption under Sec.139 of N.I.Act. No reply was also sent by the accused refuting the allegations made in the statutory notice and as such, the court below should have accepted the case of the complainant. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the accused pointing out the irreconcilability of the case advanced by the complainant. While the case of the complainant in the complaint and in the examination in chief is that the accused had borrowed Rs.4 lakhs from him and it was to discharge that debt Ext.P1 was issued, during cross examination it was admitted by PW1 that he had deposed before court in another case - C.C.No.1376/2000 that the accused had borrowed Rs.4 lakhs from one Ashokan who is his friend and that since the money was not paid by the accused to Ashokan mentioned above, he (PW1) had to give a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to Ashokan which was the amount payable by the accused to Ashokan and it was to discharge that debt Ex.P1 was issued. C.C.No.1376/2000 was filed by the complainant against the accused alleging that the accused had committed cheating. C.C.No.1376/2000 was filed by the complainant against the accused alleging that the accused had committed cheating. Whatever that be, the case set up in the complaint and given by the complainant in chief examination that he had lent Rs.4 lakhs to the accused in December,1998 cannot be true in the light of the admission made by PW1 in Ext.D1 the deposition given by him in C.C.No.1376/2000. 4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the accused that it is highly improbable that in the year 1998- 1999 one would lend Rs.4 lakhs without any document whatsoever and without being witnessed by anybody. The contention that the accused was his friend and so the complainant advanced Rs.4 lakhs is only the self serving statement of PW1, the learned counsel for the accused submits. Admittedly, no document was obtained by the complainant though he was alleged to have lent Rs.4 lakhs to the accused. As stated above, the alleged plea of lending in December 1998 stands belied by the admission made by PW1 in Ext.D1. No other evidence was also adduced by the complainant to prove the transaction averred by him in the complaint. The accused contends that Ext.P1 was got signed by him under coercion at the instance of the police. That case may not be acceptable as such but in order to reverse the order of acquittal there should be strong material in support of the case put forward by the complainant. In the absence of any other evidence, the court below cannot be faulted for arriving at a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the transaction alleged by the complainant. As such, I find no reason to set aside the order of acquittal. In the result, this appeal falls and is hence dismissed.