JUDGMENT : 1. Since the First Appellate Court passed the common judgment in respect of both the appeals preferred before it and since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellant-complainant before this Court being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 25-7-2006 passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in Cri. Appeal Nos. 15091 and 15092 of 2005. 3. The complainant before this Court filed two private complaints in PCR Nos. 348 and 347 of 2002, which are subsequently registered as C.C. Nos. 26127 and 26128 of 2003 respectively. 4. In the criminal case pertaining to Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006, the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial Court against the respondent-accused stating that he was having the business transaction with the respondent-accused of supplying the materials to her on credit basis and the respondent-accused used to repay the bill amount on later dates. It is further averred in the complaint that inspite of making such payments by the respondent-accused, there was a balance to be payable by the respondent-accused to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,14,778/- and including interest the amount comes to Rs. 1,73,400/-. On repeated request by the complainant, the respondent-accused issued the cheque as per Ex. P. 1 for an amount of Rs. 1,73,400/- in full and final settlement of the claim amount. But when the said cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured, and the legal notice was issued by the complainant to the accused informing the same. The respondent-accused had not claimed the notice sent through registered post, but the notice sent under certificate of posting was served on the accused. Hence, the appellant-complainant filed the case before the XIV ACMM Court at Bangalore against the respondent-accused. 5. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, process was issued to the respondent-accused. Respondent-accused appeared and she had also filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence in the case. It is the contention of the respondent-accused in the said case that she used to purchase the materials from the complainant on credit basis and the transaction was from 5-5-1997 upto 25-1-1999 and the total purchase was amounting to Rs. 8,22,051.74. Respondent-accused appeared and she had also filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence in the case. It is the contention of the respondent-accused in the said case that she used to purchase the materials from the complainant on credit basis and the transaction was from 5-5-1997 upto 25-1-1999 and the total purchase was amounting to Rs. 8,22,051.74. It is also the contention of the respondent-accused that the payment made by way of cheque and cash were amounting to Rs. 9,04,973/- which is in excess of the due amount. It is her further contention that she has not at all issued the cheque-Ex. P. 1 in discharge of any existing debt amount, but when the transaction was started with the complainant, at that time, complainant insisted the respondent-accused to give a blank cheque as a security and for that reason the respondent-accused issued the blank cheque putting only the signature and the same has been misused by the complainant by putting the date as 1-12-2001 said to have been issued by the respondent-accused. It is also the contention of the respondent-accused that in the year 1999 itself she had dosed her account in the Vijaya Bank, hence, the question of she issuing the cheque-Ex. P. 1 in the year 2001 does not arise at all. 6. After considering the evidence on record by both the sides i.e. oral and documentary, ultimately the Trial Court came to the conclusion that respondent-accused issued the cheque under Ex. P. 1, which has been dishonoured, hence, she has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted the respondent-accused. 7. In another criminal case pertaining to Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 is concerned, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against accused 1 and 2, who are the husband and wife, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Looking to the facts of the said case, it was stated that accused 1 and 2 were known to the complainant and complainant had the business transaction with them. Accused 1 and 2 used to purchase the materials from the complainant on credit basis and the) used to repay the bill amount on later dates. The complainant supplied the materials worth Rs. 95,491/- on various dates as mentioned in detail in the complaint. Accused 1 and 2 used to purchase the materials from the complainant on credit basis and the) used to repay the bill amount on later dates. The complainant supplied the materials worth Rs. 95,491/- on various dates as mentioned in detail in the complaint. When the complainant approached accused 1 and 2 requesting to repay the bill amount they expressed their financial difficulties, as accused 1 met with an accident and bed ridden. But on 25-9-2001 when the complainant approached accused 1 and 2 for the payment of bill amount worth Rs. 94,491/- with interest, which is totalling to Rs. 1,50,000/- as the full and final settlement of the outstanding due amount of the said bills, accused 1 told the complainant that accused 2 would issue the cheque on his behalf to discharge his liability towards the outstanding amount. Accordingly, accused 2 issued the cheque dated 1-10-2001 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant and issued another cheque dated 1-11-2001 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured and the complainant issued the legal notice. The notice sent through RPAD was returned as not claimed but the notice sent through certificate of posting was served on the accused persons. Inspite of that, they did not made the payment to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against accused 1 and 2. 8. The complainant led his evidence before the Court and got marked the documents on his side. The respondent-accused 1 had also led his evidence and produced the documents-Exs. D. 1 to D. 4 and sought to dismiss the complaint. It is the contention of respondent-accused 1 that he has delivered the finished goods to the complainant under Exs. D. 1 to D. 3, hence, he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. It is also the contention that when the transaction was started with the complainant, complainant insisted for the issue of blank cheque as security, accordingly, the cheques were issued by accused 2 and the same have been misused by the complainant. The issuance of two cheques are not in discharge of any existing debt. It is also the contention that when the transaction was started with the complainant, complainant insisted for the issue of blank cheque as security, accordingly, the cheques were issued by accused 2 and the same have been misused by the complainant. The issuance of two cheques are not in discharge of any existing debt. It is the further contention that respondent-accused 2 closed her account in the Vijaya Bank in the year 1999 itself and hence, the question of issuing two cheques, which were produced under Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 does not arise at all. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant in respect of both the cases and also the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for respondent-accused in respect of both the appeals. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments has submitted that issuance of cheque and the signature of Smt. Sukdev Kaur is not in dispute. If there was no due amount to be payable by the accused to the complainant, then what was the necessity for the issue of said cheques in favour of the complainant under Ex. P. 1 in Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006 and Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006. Learned Counsel has further submitted that though it is contended by the respondent-accused that the cheques were given in blank as a security for the transaction and as demanded by the complainant, but there is no supporting material to prove the said contention, hence, the defence taken by the respondent-accused is not satisfactorily established by them. He has submitted that only on the ground that the account in the Vijaya Bank was closed in the year 1999 itself and hence, there was no occasion for issue of the cheques after two years, which are drawn on the said bank, cannot be a ground for rejection of the entire case of the complainant. He has submitted that Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials and rightly convicted the accused in the respective case but the First Appellate Court ignoring the relevant oral and documentary evidence, disbelieved the case of the complainant and wrongly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused and dismissed the complaints setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 11. 11. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant has relied upon the following decisions filed along with the memo of citations dated 18-2-2015:- (i) In the case of NEPC Micon Limited and Others vs. Magma Leasing Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1952 : (1999) 4 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 524 : 1999 Cri. L.J. 2883 (SC). (ii) In the case of A.V. Murthy vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna, AIR 2002 SC 985 : 2002 Cri. L.J. 1479 (SC) : (2002) 2 SCC 642 . (iii) In the case of Thirumala Agencies and Another vs. Samala Mareppa and Sons, 2001 (4) Kar. L.J. 233 : ILR 2001 Kar. 737 : 2001 Cri. L.J. 2692 (Kar.). 12. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused during the course of his arguments has submitted that the Trial Court has not at all considered the oral and documentary evidence properly and wrongly convicted the accused. The First Appellate Court considered the oral and documentary' evidence in detail and rightly allowed the appeals and dismissed the complaints filed by the complainant. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the hand-writings and the colours of the cheques issued in respect of both the cases are totally different, which itself is sufficient to disbelieve the case of the complainant. He has submitted that these aspects have been properly appreciated by the First Appellate Court in dismissing the complaints of the complainant. No illegality has been committed, nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by' the First Appellate Court and there are no merits in these appeals and hence, same may be dismissed. 13. I have perused the averments of the complaint in both the cases presented before the Trial Court, oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Trial Court, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court separately in two criminal cases, so also the common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court, which are challenged before this Court in these appeals, the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum in both these appeals and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, which are referred above. 14. 14. Looking to the contentions of both sides, it is an admitted fact according to both sides that there was a business transaction between the complainant and accused 1 and 2 for the supply of materials on credit basis. But it is the contention of the respondent-accused that they have already made the payments and also supplied the finished goods to the complainant, hence, they are not in due to make the payment of any due amount to the complainant. 15. It is no doubt true the signatures on the cheques i.e. Ex. P. 1 in Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006 and Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 are admitted as that of Smt. Sukdev Kaur. But it is the contention of the respondent-accused that these cheques were given to the complainant at the commencement of the business transaction as a security for the payment of the amount and as demanded by the complainant. It is also their contention that they were blank cheques and only the signatures were put by the Smt. Sukdev Kaur and all other writings were made by the complainant himself. It is true that once the signatures on the cheques and the issuance of the cheques are admitted by the respondent-accused there is initial presumption under law under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding passing of consideration and also that instruments were issued in discharge of existing debt. But this presumption is not conclusive presumption; it is a rebuttal presumption, the accused can rebut the said presumption by plausible explanation and also by producing satisfactory material in proof of the said explanation. So far as the rebuttal evidence is concerned, the degree of proof for the accused is not that of proof beyond all reasonable doubt like in other criminal cases but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient for rebutting the presumption by the accused. 16. Looking to the oral evidence of the parties, complainant has been examined as P.W. 1 in both the cases, but looking to his cross-examination, he has admitted the documents-Exs. D. 1 to D. 34, which are issued by the complainant to the accused. Though it is the consistent defence of the accused that the transaction with the complainant was started from 5-5-1997 upto 25-1-1999 but the complainant shown his ignorance about the same. D. 1 to D. 34, which are issued by the complainant to the accused. Though it is the consistent defence of the accused that the transaction with the complainant was started from 5-5-1997 upto 25-1-1999 but the complainant shown his ignorance about the same. He has admitted in his oral evidence during the course of cross-examination that during the year 1997 to 2000 in the proprietary concern of the complainant the persons by name Kodandan, Kemparaj, Ekambram and Shekar were working and he has also admitted the issue of Exs. D. 35 to D. 57 to the accused so also Exs. D. 60 and D. 61 but he deposed that he cannot say that accused is due to the tune of Rs. 8,22,051.74 (in respect of Cri. A. No. 2482 of 2006) but he denied that accused has totally paid Rs. 9,04,973/- to him when it was suggested that the accused made the payment by issuing the cheques and cash. He has admitted as true, in respect of some of such payments, but denied about the other payments. He shown his ignorance that the accused 2 closed her accused in the bank on 8-7-1999 itself. 17. In respect of Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 also complainant has admitted in I his cross-examination that Smt. Sukdev Kaur has no any sort of connection with Eko Designs so also he has admitted that Exs. P. 14 to P. 22 have no connection with Rustique Furniture, but he denied the suggestion that the two cheques were issued in blank in respect of the transaction of Rustique Furniture. 18. Looking to the materials placed on record so far as Eko Designs is concerned, accused 1-P. Devender Singh is the Proprietor, who is the husband of accused 2, but the cheques are said to have been issued by accused 2-Smt. Sukdev Kaur. Even according to the evidence of P.W. 1 in the I two cases, he himself has admitted that accused 2 has no sort of any connection with Eko designs, even then the Trial Court convicted accused 2 only on the basis that the cheques are said to have been issued by accused 2 on behalf of accused 1. Even according to the evidence of P.W. 1 in the I two cases, he himself has admitted that accused 2 has no sort of any connection with Eko designs, even then the Trial Court convicted accused 2 only on the basis that the cheques are said to have been issued by accused 2 on behalf of accused 1. Regarding the business transaction said to have been taken place and to know what was the due amount to be payable by the respondent-accused to the complainant in respect of both the cases, the appellant-complainant ought to have produced the account books pertaining to the said transactions, which he had not produced before the Trial Court, if the account books are produced before the Court then it will be easy for the Court to ascertain about what was the due amount or the respondent-accused have already paid the entire amount, as contended by the respondent-accused. 19. It is true that the cheques i.e. Ex. P. 1 in Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006 and Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 are not of the same colour, the writings in those cheques are not of the same person and they are different. Though it is the contention of the complainant that Smt. Sukdev Kaur issued the cheque-Ex. P. 1 in Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006 on the date i.e. 1-12-2001 and cheques-Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 on 1-10-2001 and 1-11-2001, respectively, but the complainant has produced the cheque receipts under Ex. P. 3 in the Cri. Appeal No. 2482 of 2006 and Ex. P. 5 in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006, both these are original receipts and they are dated 5-12-2001. When the cheques in Cri. Appeal No. 2481 of 2006 are issued on 1-10-2001 and 1-11-2001, why the receipts were issued only on 5-12-2001 in respect of both the cheques has to be explained by the complainant and why the cheque receipts were not issued on the dates when the cheques were said to have been issued by the respondent-accused is also not explained by the complainant. The original cheque receipts under Exs. The original cheque receipts under Exs. P. 3 and P. 5 in the respective cases, which are supposed to be in the custody of respondent-accused and the folio of the said cheque receipts or the cheque receipts register itself ought to have been produced by the complainant before the Court, but how the complainant himself is having the custody of the original cheque receipts is to be clarified by the complainant himself. As it is observed by the First Appellate Court that the cheque receipts register is also not placed before the Court so as to ascertain the receipt numbers and on which dates they are said to have been written after the alleged receipt of cheques said to have been given by the respondent-accused, about all these aspects there is no evidence on record either before the Trial Court or at least before the First Appellate Court by way of additional evidence. Regarding these aspects it is necessary to give opportunity to both the sides to adduce their additional evidence, if any, either oral or documentary to clarify the points about which I have made the reference above. The Courts below without getting these aspects clarified, proceeded in the matter and the Trial Court convicted the accused 2, which was set aside by the First Appellate Court. 20. Hence, perusing the entire materials on record i.e., both oral and documentary, I am of the opinion that certain points are to be clarified before the Court to come to right conclusion and to pronounce satisfactory judgment in the matter. Therefore, it requires recording of further evidence of both sides, which can be conveniently done before the Trial Court itself and not before this Court. 21. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court in respect of both the matters are hereby set aside and both the matters are remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both sides to lead their further evidence, if any, either oral or documentary. Since the matters are pending from 2003, the Trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matters on priority basis and to dispose of both the cases as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of the this judgment and also the original records of the case. The Trial Court has to dispose of the matters without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in the body of this judgment.