JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant/complainant filed the present appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.5.2009 passed in CC No. 1360 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in CC. 2. The facts in issue are as under: The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"). The averments in the complaint would show that the accused who was a Petrol Bunk at Maddilamadugu Village, Rapur Mandal, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- for his business purpose, and in discharge of said debt, the accused is said to have issued a cheque Bearing No. 998851 for Rs. 1,20,000/-, dated 8.11.2005 drawn on Andhra Bank, Sullurpet in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented for collection on 13.11.2005 was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 24.11.2005 demanding the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. In spite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay any amount. As the accused failed to pay any amount, the present complaint came to be filed. 3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant the case was taken on file and summons were issued to the accused. On appearance, the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the accusation levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of his case, the appellant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. After analysing the evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the evidence available on record does not disclose that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the cheque bearing No. 998851 for Rs. 1,20,000/- was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or any other liability? 7. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the cheque bearing No. 998851 for Rs. 1,20,000/- was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or any other liability? 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that since the signature on the cheque is not in dispute and as the accused failed to rebut the evidence by leading any evidence, it has to be presumed that the said cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the accused would submit that the complainant failed to establish that the said cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability in view of inconsistent version of PWs.1 and 2. It is further submitted that the accused could rebut the presumption by eliciting necessary answers from the cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 2 itself and that an adverse inference need not be drawn due to non-examination of any of the witnesses from his side. 9. In order to prove the rival contentions, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW1 in his evidence reiterated the averments made in the complaint, mainly with regard to borrowing an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the accused and issuance of cheque Ex.P1, which presented for collection was returned due to insufficient funds. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the accused did not execute any document in discharge of his liability except Ex.P1. The cross-examination of PW1 would also disclose that he was running Hero Honda Showroom at Venkatagiri, of which, himself and his wife are the owners. He further admits that the accounts maintained by him in their showroom indicate the payments of money to the accused. To a suggestion, he denied non-payment of any amount to the accused and that he did not mention the same in the accounts. He further admitted that he has already submitted the income tax returns for the year 2005 to the income tax authorities, and as such, he could not produce returns before the Court on the date of examination. Through a suggestion, he denied about a dispute between Vishnu Mohan and one Rama Rao and that the said cheque, which was given to Vishnu Mohan was misused by the complainant. 10. Through a suggestion, he denied about a dispute between Vishnu Mohan and one Rama Rao and that the said cheque, which was given to Vishnu Mohan was misused by the complainant. 10. PW1 in his cross-examination admits that he did not stated in his evidence as to the source of paying Rs. 1,20,000/- to the accused. However, he admits that he took the said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from known persons but he cannot say their names. 11. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that PW1 in his evidence stated that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from him, as he was in need for his business purpose. Pursuant to repeated demands, the accused is said to have issued a cheque bearing No. 998851, dated 8.11.2005 to PW1, which presented for collection was returned due to 'insufficient funds'. The said evidence of PW1 runs totally contrary to the evidence of PW2. 12. PW2 is none other than the brother-in-law of PW1. In the chief affidavit, PW2 stated that on 28.10.2005 he was called by his brother-in-law, to his petrol bunk and by showing the accused to him asked him to give Rs. 1,20,000/-. When asked about the reason for lending money, the complainant stated that the accused was his bosom friend and that he promised to lend to him a hand loan. Thereafter, the accused went along with PW2 to the Hero Honda Showroom of the complainant at Venkatagiri Town. His evidence further discloses that on a request made by him the accused gave a letter evidencing the receipt of hand loan. PW2 stated that he did not inform to his brother-in-law about the letter taken by him from the accused. He further deposed that the contents of the said letter were written by him and the same was signed by the accused. He placed on record the said letter issued by the accused as Ex.A5. PW2 was cross-examined at length. 13. As stated supra, PW2 in his chief affidavit, categorically stated that on 28.10.2005 pursuant to the instructions given by his brother-in-law, who is examined as PW1, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid, and thereafter, he is alleged to have taken a receipt from the accused. Both the versions of PWs.1 and 2 are inconsistent with each other. There is no reference to PW2 in the evidence of PW1. 1,20,000/- was paid, and thereafter, he is alleged to have taken a receipt from the accused. Both the versions of PWs.1 and 2 are inconsistent with each other. There is no reference to PW2 in the evidence of PW1. After completion of the evidence of PW1, the complainant appears to have pressed into service the evidence of PW2 and through him he got marked Ex.P5. A perusal of Ex.P5 would reveal that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was received from the complainant on 28.10.2005 and the last sentence of Ex.P5 reveal that the accused signed the said document and received the amount from PW2. PW2 in his cross-examination it was mentioned that the accused received amount from PW2 and not from PW1. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether the accused has borrowed the amount from PW1 or from PW2. If Ex.P5 and the evidence of PW2 are to be seen, no reasons are forthcoming to the issuance of the cheque. The first statement of PW2 shows that he brought Rs. 1,20,000/- and gave the said amount to PW1 which in turn was paid to the accused. The second statement of PW2 shows that PW1 himself took the said amount from his known persons and paid the same to the accused. Further, if the amount is borrowed from the complainant, the receipt, if any, executed by the accused should have been in favour of the complainant and not in favour of PW2. If the amount was borrowed from PW2 as elicited from PW2, the cheque should have been issued in favour of PW2 but not in favour of PW1. Therefore, the contradictions, which are elicited from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P5, clearly establish that the accused was able to rebut the presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Act. Once the accused was able to rebut the presumption, the burden automatically shifts on to the complainant to prove that Ex.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. 14. The version of PWs.1 and 2 being inconsistent with each other and the contents of Ex.P5 giving a totally a different picture of the case. It cannot be said that the complainant was able to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused was able to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities. 14. The version of PWs.1 and 2 being inconsistent with each other and the contents of Ex.P5 giving a totally a different picture of the case. It cannot be said that the complainant was able to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused was able to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities. It is true that the accused took a plea that the cheque, which was given to one Vishnu Mohan due to business dealings was misused by the complainant. The accused did not lead any evidence to show the nature of the business dealings, but the evidence of PW1 would show that the said Vishnu Mohan took the petrol bunk of the accused on lease. However, he denies about his knowledge with regard to disputes between Vishnu Mohan and one Rama Rao and the blank cheque given by the accused to Vishnu Mohan in the business transactions, was in turn given to complainant for filing the complaint. In any event, if really, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was given as hand loan, the complainant would have taken definitely a pronote acknowledging the receipt of the same. No document was produced before the Court to show the receipt of money by the accused. PW1 being the businessman would not have lent money without taking any documents in proof of the same. Though PW1 in his evidence tried to contend that the amount was shown in his accounts maintained in the showroom and also in the income tax returns filed by him, but no effort was made to produce the same before the Court. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether PW1 has lent above amount as hand loan to the accused. 15. In case of appeal against acquittal the scope of appeal is circumscribed by limitation. Unless approach of lower Court to consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no interference with the order of acquittal is permissible. 16. In Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 , the apex Court held as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. 16. In Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 , the apex Court held as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate Court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent Court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate Court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate Court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed." 17. In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of A.P., (2011) 8 SCC 635 , the apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of A.P., (2011) 8 SCC 635 , the apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial Court warrants no interference, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal appeal shall stand closed.