JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.-This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 21.04.2006 passed by the 22nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and 24th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in CC No. 15322/2004 acquitting the accused therein for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. It is the case of the complainant/appellant that, respondent had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- in all, in respect of the amounts due and legally recoverable from the accused and when the cheques were presented for payment through State Bank of Mysore, Cottonpet Branch, the same got dishonoured as per endorsement dated 20.05.2004 on the ground of "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant issued notice on 04.06.2004, through Registered Post and Under Certificate of Posting under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act calling upon the accused to pay the cheques amounts, but the notice sent through RPAD was returned unserved with an endorsement "intimation delivered and unclaimed, return to sender" and the notice sent though Under Certificate of Posting was duly served. But accused/respondent has not replied to the said notice nor he has paid the cheque amounts. Hence, after the period provided under the statute, complainant filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 3. The Court after taking cognizance of the offence, summoned the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges made against him. Thereafter, the complainant has examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 12 in support of her case. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He has got examined himself as DW1 and also one witness Chanda Bhagavan Das as DW2 and produced documents as per Exs.D1 to 3. The learned Magistrate after carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record has held that the complainant has not proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed an order of acquittal. It is this order of acquittal which has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal. 4. Despite the case being posted before the Court on various dates neither the counsel for the appellant nor the counsel for the respondent appeared before the Court and submitted their arguments. It is this order of acquittal which has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal. 4. Despite the case being posted before the Court on various dates neither the counsel for the appellant nor the counsel for the respondent appeared before the Court and submitted their arguments. The case is of the year 2006 and qualifies to be a case older than five years, hence this Court scrutinized the entire trial Court records personally and the matter is posted today for dictating Judgment. 5. The complainant filed a complaint on 07.07.2004 before the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were well acquainted to her and during the month of November 2003, accused approached the complainant and borrowed a loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- for his domestic requirements and for business improvements. Accused after receipt of the said amount, promised to repay the same within a short period. It is stated in the complaint that, the complainant gave loan to the accused and the accused received the same and issued a cheque bearing No. 176337 dated 15.04.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, City Branch, Bangalore- 560053 and another cheque bearing No. 218175 dated 09.04.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-drawn on the Shyamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank Limited, Extension Counter, St.Anns Education Society, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10. The said cheques were issued by accused in discharge of the liability towards the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that, when the complainant requested the accused to return the amount of the cheques, accused refused to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant presented those cheques through her bank namely State Bank of Mysore, Cottonpet Branch, Bangalore. But the said cheques were dishonoured and returned to the complainant with an endorsement dated 20.05.2004stating that "funds were insufficient to honour the cheques". Thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the accused on 04.06.2004 and the notice issued to the accused by RPAD was returned as 'unclaimed', whereas the notice sent under Certificate of Posting was delivered to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant waited till the statutory period to file the complaint before the Court and later filed the complaint. 6. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences issued process to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant got herself examined as PW.1. Thereafter, the complainant waited till the statutory period to file the complaint before the Court and later filed the complaint. 6. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences issued process to the accused. Thereafter, the complainant got herself examined as PW.1. She has reiterated the contents of the complaint in her evidence produced before the Court by way of an affidavit. She has got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to 12, in the Court. In the cross-examination, it is elicited by accused that, accused is doing fruit vending business and that his total investment is between Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. It is further elicited that, the complainant is doing tailoring work. She has not paid any income tax during the period from 2003-2005. She is not aware as to, when the cheques were presented to the Bank. She has further stated that, both the cheques belong to Shyamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank. She knows one Shettamma since 25 years and that the complainant was selling sarees to the said Shettamma. It is suggested to PW.1 that, she had taken loan from Shettamma and that in discharge of the said loan, she had issued certain documents by borrowing the same from the accused. It is suggested that, in the year 1998, the complainant had got loan of Rs. 50,000/- from one Kanthamma. PW.1 admitted that, she knows one Kanthamma. However, she denies that, she has got loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. It is also further suggested to the complainant that, accused had repaid the said loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- in six installments to the aforesaid Kanthamma. However, PW.1 has denied the said suggestion. It is suggested by accused that, the cheques involved in this case were the ones which were given by him to Kanthamma and Shettamma respectively and that the accused has already cleared the loan taken from the aforesaid women. It is further suggested that, during the fruit season, accused used to borrow some amount between Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. PW. 1 has denied the same. However, PW.1 has stated that, the accused was taking loan of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is suggested that since, there was some misunderstanding, the complainant had presented the cheques given to Kanthamma and Shettamma and that no liabilities exist on the accused in favour of the complainant, which suggestion has been denied by the complainant. However, PW.1 has stated that, the accused was taking loan of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is suggested that since, there was some misunderstanding, the complainant had presented the cheques given to Kanthamma and Shettamma and that no liabilities exist on the accused in favour of the complainant, which suggestion has been denied by the complainant. 7. After the evidence of PW.1, the Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded by the Court and the accused denied the allegation in the said statement. Accused thereafter examined himself as DW.1. He has stated in his evidence that, his capacity is only between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and that he is carrying on the business of orange and grapes in the season and during that period he has borrowed the amount from others not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- at one time. He has further stated in the evidence that, in the year 1998, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to solve his domestic problems and also to improve his business. At that time, the complainant did not have such amount and therefore, she introduced one Smt. Kanthamma of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore and accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Kanthamma in which connection he had issued a blank cheque drawn on State Bank of Mysore towards security for repayment of the above said money. The accused has also stated that, when he requested one Mahendra who is son of Kanthamma to return the cheques, he was informed that since Complainant is due in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to them, they promised to return the cheque after the complainant discharges her liability. It is his case that, the said cheques have been misused by the complainant. It is further stated by DW. 1 that, during the year 2002, again he was in need of Rs. 20,000/- and during that period, he has approached one Shettamma, through the complainant and had borrowed Rs. 20,000/-. At that time, he had issued blank cheque on Shyamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank and obtained loan. Though, he had repaid the said loan also, the said Shettamma, who was known to the complainant did not return the blank cheque given by him. It is stated by DW. 1 that, he has never borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- nor he was in need of the said money. Though, he had repaid the said loan also, the said Shettamma, who was known to the complainant did not return the blank cheque given by him. It is stated by DW. 1 that, he has never borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- nor he was in need of the said money. He has further stated that the cheque has not been returned by the complainant or either by Kanthamma or by Shettamma and that he has only signed the cheques. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that, he is deposing falsely in order to save the money. It is further elicited that, he was giving and taking the money to an extent of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-from the complainant. DW. 1 has further produced three documents Exs.D1 to 3 which comprises of the cheque book of Shyamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, two dairies in which the accused is alleged to have entered the amount paid by him through the aforesaid Kanthamma. 8. DW.2 is one Chandra Bhagavan Das who is a cloth merchant in Cottonpet. He has stated that, he knows both accused and the complainant and the accused had purchased clothes from his shop on 11.03.2002 worth about Rs. 20,000/-. DW.2 has been treated has hostile and the advocate for accused had cross-examined the said witnesses. 9. The trial Court on consideration of the entire materials has come to the conclusion that the case of the accused is that he is a small fruit vendor and that he would borrow the amount in the region of Rs. 10,000/-to Rs. 20,000/- and further there was no reason, why accused needed huge amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- which ground has been considered in favour of the accused. The trial Court has also held that, PW. 1 in her evidence has stated that, both the cheques issued by accused belongs to Shyamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, whereas, infact, the one cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is drawn on the State Bank of Mysore. The trial Court also has observed that the hand writing in the cheques and the signatures in the said cheques was in two different inks. The trial Court has further observed that, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, she was in possession of Rs. 2,75,000/-, whereas, she is a tailor and that she herself was taking loan for about Rs. 20,000/- from Kanthamma and Shettamma. The trial Court has further observed that, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, she was in possession of Rs. 2,75,000/-, whereas, she is a tailor and that she herself was taking loan for about Rs. 20,000/- from Kanthamma and Shettamma. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has held that, the complainant has not proved the case that, she was in a position to pay an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the accused and hence, there is doubt in the case of the complainant and therefore, by giving benefit of the said doubt to the accused, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. 10. I have carefully gone through the materials on record including the evidence of PW.1 and all the documents Exs.P1 to 12 and also the evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 and Exs.D1 to 3. On the careful consideration of these materials, it is seen that the Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and the reasoning given by him for recording the order of acquittal is based on the evidence and proper appreciation of the materials on record. Hence, I do not find any error or illegality in the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused by the learned Magistrate. 11. In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court, unless the same is perverse or against the evidence on record or the same is not based on the settled principles of law. There being no such ground in this appeal, this Court would not interfere with the well considered Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 12. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merits and it is dismissed.