JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N.G. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case no. CR 1608 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the present respondent has been acquitted from the charge of committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The indisputed facts are that a cheque bearing no. 601633 for Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited to the bank, but was returned back by the drawer-bank for insufficiency of fund. After that the demand notice was served upon the respondent and within the statutory period, the appellant herein has filed the complaint before the appropriate court. The case was heard and tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. Crucial question to determine applicability of Section 138 of the NI Act is whether the cheque represents discharge of existing enforceable debt or liability or whether it represents advance payment without there being subsisting debt or liability. 4. The complainant in her complaint has stated that she had given a loan of Rs. 5 lakh for the purpose of treatment of the husband of the accused-respondent and after a few days, the accused-respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, but the cheque was not disbursed due to insufficient fund as remarked by the drawer bank, State Bank of India. There is no defect in issuing the notice for statutory requirement as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. After filing of the complaint, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala took cognizance of the complaint in the form of substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. read as follows: “That, you Smt. Sangita Saha W/o Late Bikash Saha took a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Smt. Babita Saha on 18.03.2005 to be repaid within 6(six) months from the date of its receipt at a time without interest. That, in settlement of the said loan, you had issued a cheque no. 601633 dated 15.02.2006 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Agartala Branch in favour of Smt. Babita Saha. 5,00,000/- from Smt. Babita Saha on 18.03.2005 to be repaid within 6(six) months from the date of its receipt at a time without interest. That, in settlement of the said loan, you had issued a cheque no. 601633 dated 15.02.2006 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Agartala Branch in favour of Smt. Babita Saha. Smt. Babita Saha deposited the said cheque to her bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala Branch, Agartala, Tripura West for collection on 10.5.2006. On presentation of the aforesaid cheque through Smt. Babita Saha’s said bank to your bank for clearance, the cheque issued by you was dishonoured due to insufficient fund and returned to Smt. Babita Saha’s said bank by your bank vide return memo dated 11.5.2006. That, you after receipt of demand notice dated 19.5.2006 received by you on 24.5.2006 failed to pay the dishonoured cheque amount within the stipulated time to Smt. Babita Saha. You have thus committed an offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 as amended upto date. What do you have to say to this accusation? The allegation made by the complainant is not true. I am innocent. I want justice.” 6. On the basis of the said charge, the matter was put to trial in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, court no. 1, Agartala, West Tripura. The complainant examined as many as 5 witnesses to prove the case. 7. PW-1, Narayan Das is the postmaster who is the witness of delivery of the letter vide no. 2724 dated 19.04.2006. PW-2, Swapan kumar Podder is the official of State Bank of India who has stated that they have received the cheque from Baroda Bank, but the said cheque was returned back to the said bank due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused-respondent. The bank officer in his cross-examination stated that if any cheque is designated as self drawn cheque then the person who issue cheque also put her/his signature on the back side at the time of receiving cash money. In the instant cheque (Exhibit-5), I find the accused- respondent has put her signature on the back side also which she was not supposed to do at the time of sending the same to the complainant. In the instant cheque (Exhibit-5), I find the accused- respondent has put her signature on the back side also which she was not supposed to do at the time of sending the same to the complainant. PW-3, Sushanta Das is also a bank official of Baroda Ban and he has stated that after receipt of the said cheque (Exhibit-5) he sent it to the State Bank of India for collection, but the said cheque was returned back to his bank by way of return memo issued by the State Bank of India wherein it was marked that the cheque amount was not credited to the account of the complainant due to insufficiency of fund. PW-4 Dilip Kumar Dey is the postman. There is no dispute in regard to the receipt of the demand notice. PW-5, Smt. Babita Saha is the complainant. She has stated that that at the time of sickness of the husband of the accused-respondent, the accused respondent approached her for a loan amounting to Rs. 5 lakh and accordingly on 18.03.2005 she paid her Rs. 5 lakh in cash on assurance that the accused shall repay the said money within a period of six months without interest, but within the said period she did not pay the said amount to the complainant and on repeated persuasion, the accused-respondent issued a cheque bearing no. 601633 dated 15.02.2006 drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the complainant, herein. On presentation of the aforesaid cheque, it was returned back for insufficiency of fund. She has stated that there was a partnership business of three persons, namely, Haralal Saha, Subal Saha and Gour Saha and in the said business, her husband Subal Saha was managing partner of the said business. After death of her husband, she was inducted and substituted in place of her deceased husband and she became the managing partner of the said partnership business. She has further deposed that their partnership business deals in agency with Sikha Bidi. The license of Sikha Bidi was issued in presence of Bikash Saha, husband of the accused. All the relevant documents regarding the partnership business always used to remain in her custody. She had denied that account no. 01150067469 was opened in the name of the accused-respondent for purpose of that business. The license of Sikha Bidi was issued in presence of Bikash Saha, husband of the accused. All the relevant documents regarding the partnership business always used to remain in her custody. She had denied that account no. 01150067469 was opened in the name of the accused-respondent for purpose of that business. She has further deposed that one Sri Pradip Pal was the employee of their partnership business and still he is associated at their business. According to her on 20.12.2005, the accused-respondent filed a civil suit against the complainant and she also filed written statement in the said case. The issue of that case relates to the partnership business of Smt. Babita Saha, the complainant herein and Gour Saha. In the said written statement she did not state about getting Rs. 5 lakh from the accused. She has deposed that on 15.02.2006, the accused- respondent had handed over the said cheque, in question (Exhibit-5). In her deposition, she has stated that she has no knowledge who wrote and filled up the said cheque in question (Exhibit-5). It was also difficult on which date the present cheque in question was issued. PW-5 has further stated that she has no knowledge that the pass book has been lying in the custody of Pradip Paul or not. 8. On the basis of this deposition and statement, Mr. N.G. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has submitted that the complainant has been able to prove her case that there was a legally enforceable debt to her and the fact of taking loan of Rs. 5 lakh by the accused-respondent has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has drawn my attention to the cross-examination put-forth by the accused-respondent wherein the statement has been volunteered by PW-5, the complainant to the effect that the signature on the said cheque for Rs. 5 lakh bearing cheque no. 601633 dated 15.02.2006 is presumed to be the signature of the accused-respondent. 9. The accused-respondent has also adduced evidence as DW-1 before the trial court and has stated that her husband has three brothers, namely, Subal Saha, Bikash Saha and Gour Saha. Subal Saha, the husband of the complainant died in the year 2003. Her husband Bikash Saha died on 26.03.2005. Her father-in-law Haralal Saha has business of Sikha Bidi as partner. There are three partners in the said business namely Subal Saha, Haralal Saha and Gour Saha. Subal Saha, the husband of the complainant died in the year 2003. Her husband Bikash Saha died on 26.03.2005. Her father-in-law Haralal Saha has business of Sikha Bidi as partner. There are three partners in the said business namely Subal Saha, Haralal Saha and Gour Saha. The said partners used to deal with the business of Sikha Bidi as marketing agent of the said business. Her husband late Bikash Saha was the license holder of the said Sikha Bidi business. She has further deposed that she has also engaged herself to the said business and used to collect leaves of Sikha Bidi and she was a license holder of Bidi leaves, and the managing partner of Sikha Bidi was Subal Saha. Babita Saha, the complainant herein, is the wife of Subal Saha and after death of Subal Saha, his wife i.e. the present complainant entered into the business as managing partner of the said firm. She has further stated during her examination-in-chief that for the purpose of said business her father-in-law late Haralal Saha opened a bank account at State Bank of India, Melarmath Branch in her name for the purpose of business and the said account used to be operated by the husband of the complainant, namely Subal Saha and her employee Pradip Paul and the pass-book, cheque book relating to the said SBI Bank Account were in the custody of Subal Saha and after death of Subal Saha, the complainant Babita Saha dealt with the said pass-book and cheque-book and other business related documents. All monetary transactions of the said bank used to be dealt with time to time by Subal Saha and his employee Pradip Paul. She has further deposed that at the time of withdrawal of money from the bank through her said bank account at State Bank of India, said Subal Saha and Pradip Paul used to obtain her signature in the front and back side of the cheque. After death of Subal Saha, no transaction was made in the said account and accordingly said account remained stopped from that time. She has further deposed that she had to incur Rs 3/4 lakh for the treatment of her husband which was borne by her father-in-law and some portion was spent from the bank account of Vijaya Bank which was standing in the name of her husband. She has further deposed that she had to incur Rs 3/4 lakh for the treatment of her husband which was borne by her father-in-law and some portion was spent from the bank account of Vijaya Bank which was standing in the name of her husband. She has further deposed that the main proprietor of Sikha Bidi was her husband and he was the Sikha Bidi license holder. She has denied that she had taken any loan from the complainant. She has also stated that the amount which was put, is not her handwriting and she had no knowledge about this cheque. The respondent could not say the number of the bank account. During her cross examination she has deposed that she did not submit any document in respect of her engagement with the business of Haralal Saha and Mihirlal Saha. In her cross-examination she has further stated that she could not say whether she issued any cheque or not. 10. DW-2 is the official of State Bank of India. He has stated that a cheque book having 20 leaves was issued in the name of Sangita Saha on 28.10.2006. He has submitted a copy of the printout taken from their computer system relating to the number of leafs in a cheque book issued in favour of Sangita Saha. 11. After being scanned the evidence and materials on record, it is revealed that Subal Saha was one of the key persons who used to manage the partnership firm and the business relating to Sikha Bidi. He was also the custodian of all the pass books, cheque books and other related bank documents. PW-5, the complainant has categorically stated in her evidence that Subal Saha was the managing partner of Sikha Bidi. It has also been deposed by her that after death of her husband Subal Saha, she has stepped into the shoes of her husband Subal Saha for managing the affairs of the business. She has further admitted that during the relevant period, all documents relating to partnership business used to remain in her custody. This statement of the complainant also has received support from the statement of the accused-respondent during the course of her evidence at the time of trial. She has further admitted that during the relevant period, all documents relating to partnership business used to remain in her custody. This statement of the complainant also has received support from the statement of the accused-respondent during the course of her evidence at the time of trial. PW-5 in her evidence have categorically stated that for the purpose of the business, her father-in-law Haralal Saha opened the bank account in the name of the accused-respondent and the husband of the complainant and his employee Pradip Paul used to operate the bank account, pass book, cheque books and those were lying in their custody. The evidence of DW-1 has made it clear that whenever there was need for money to be drawn from SBI Account in the name of the respondent, they used to approach the accused-respondent only for the purpose of taking her signature on the concerned cheque to withdraw the amount. So, it is crystal clear that Subal Saha as well as after his death, his wife i.e. the complainant herein had overall control of the business relating to Sikha Bidi and all the bank accounts were used to be maintained by them. The crux of the cross-examination to the accused-respondent is that the accused-respondent was never involved in any business transaction of Sikha bidi. It is also clear from a question by the complainant when the respondent replied it is not a fact that I did not engage myself with the said business of the firm, namely, Haralal and Mihirlal Saha after the death of my husband or any other time. This has raised serious doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether the said cheque in question was at all under the custody of the accused-respondent at any point of time. 12. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there was no evidence about the source of money of giving loan to the accused-respondent worth Rs. 5 lakh. The complainant never had made any endeavor to produce her bank account to substantiate that she had that amount of money in her bank account or any other business related documents to justify that she paid Rs. 5 lakh to the accused-respondent for the purpose of treatment of her husband. 5 lakh. The complainant never had made any endeavor to produce her bank account to substantiate that she had that amount of money in her bank account or any other business related documents to justify that she paid Rs. 5 lakh to the accused-respondent for the purpose of treatment of her husband. On the contrary, it has come out in evidence which remains uncontroverted in the cross-examination that it was the father-in-law who made the expenses of the treatment and the remaining money was spent from the account of the husband, which was lying with Bijaya Bank. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has further drawn my attention that Sri Pradip Paul was one of the vital witness of the case and the complainant being the managing partner of the business, Sri Pradip Paul was under her control and she could easily produce Sri Pradip Paul as a witness before the court, but Sri Pradip Paul was intentionally withheld by the complainant on the fear that he could tell otherwise. According to this court, this has caused adverse inference against the complainant. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the complainant cannot make any payment without the consent of other partners of the partnership firm and there is no such evidence that there was any consent of the partners to pay any amount to the accused-respondent by the complainant. Even none of the partners appeared before the witness box to support the case of the complainant. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex court in John K. Abraham vs. Simon C. Abraham and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 236 wherein in paragraph 6.6, the apex court has held as under: “6.6. The trial court has also noted that it was not the case of the respondent that the writing in the cheque and filling up of the figures were with the consent of the appellant-accused.” 13. In the case in hand also, I find no evidence that the writing on the cheque and filling up of the figures were taken with the consent of the accused-respondent. Admittedly, the respondent is not the writer of the cheque, and moreso, no consent was taken from her before filling up the figure. In the case in hand also, I find no evidence that the writing on the cheque and filling up of the figures were taken with the consent of the accused-respondent. Admittedly, the respondent is not the writer of the cheque, and moreso, no consent was taken from her before filling up the figure. I may gainfully refer paragraph 9 of the John K. Abraham (supra), the apex court has observed that in order to draw the presumption under Section 118 read along with Section 139 of the Negotiable instruments Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had the required funds for having advanced the money to the accused. In the case in hand also, the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate that she had required fund and had any alternative individual income so that she in her personal capacity could pay Rs. 5 lakh as loan to the accused-respondent. 14. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel placing reliance on a decision of the apex court in Jayanta Banik vs. Ritish Sarkar and Another, (2016) 2 TLR 778, wherein the apex court in paragraph 11 has held as under: “Section 139 clearly provides that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has discharged that burden to show that he had no liability to issue that cheque and as such the dishonor of cheque cannot saddle him with any culpability.” 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the principles laid down by a coordinate Bench of this court. There is no contrary opinion to the above proposition of my learned brother, but I find the facts of Jayanta Banik (supra) case are quite different from the facts of the present case in hand. According to me, in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that she had the individual or personal capability or capacity to give loan of Rs. 5 lakh to the accused-respondent. It is her clear admission during her examination-in-chief that she is one of the partners of the business. According to me, in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that she had the individual or personal capability or capacity to give loan of Rs. 5 lakh to the accused-respondent. It is her clear admission during her examination-in-chief that she is one of the partners of the business. As such, without the sanction or consent of other partners it was not possible for her to provide any loan to the respondent. 16. Another important aspect is that all the pass-books and cheque-books were in her custody as she was managing the affairs of the business after being stepped into the shoes of her husband. Her husband died in the year 2003. It has also been revealed in the evidence that the bank account which was opened in the name of the accused-respondent by her father-in-law became inoperative after the death of Haralal Saha, father-in-law of the complainant and the accused-respondent. From the harmonious reading of the evidence, it seems to be natural that all the related documents i.e. pass book, cheque book etc. of SBI Account were lying with the complainant and she took the advantage of having cheque book with her. 17. According to this court, it was not unnatural in a partnership business that the partners opened their bank account in the name of their wives and get the cheque signed by the wives for the benefit of the business. Further, since the complainant was the custodian of all the bank documents, naturally, presumption would be that she might have used the said cheque for her wrongful gain. She in her evidence did not say that who wrote the amount and filled up the body of the cheque, though, the cheque was in her custody and allegedly handed over to her by the accused-respondent. This has raised serious doubt and suspicion in the mind of this court. 18. The learned trial court after perusal of the evidence and materials on record has acquitted the respondent from the charge leveled against her. Since the accused-respondent has been acquitted, this court being the appellate court is not unmindful of the legal position that presumption of innocence lies in favour of the accused-respondent and he/she is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. 19. Since the accused-respondent has been acquitted, this court being the appellate court is not unmindful of the legal position that presumption of innocence lies in favour of the accused-respondent and he/she is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. 19. Situated thus, this court may gainfully refer to a decision of the apex court in Basappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 154 wherein the apex court in paragraph 12 has observed as under: “12. In Kallu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 313 , it has been held by this Court that if the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view, the High Court will not be justified in reversing it merely because a different view is possible. To quote: (SCC pp 317-318, para 8) “8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further, if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. I have perused the judgment of the trial court and the findings therein. On appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the trial court has held that it is clear that the complainant had no independent income at the relevant time and she had no capacity to spend any amount for any purpose out of the income and as such the statement of the complainant that she paid Rs. 5 lakh to the accused person on 18.03.2005 is absolutely false and based on no evidence. The trial court has also found the difference of ink used in the signature and the writing of the body of the cheque. 5 lakh to the accused person on 18.03.2005 is absolutely false and based on no evidence. The trial court has also found the difference of ink used in the signature and the writing of the body of the cheque. The trial court has also taken into consideration that it is admitted that PW-5 Pradip Paul was/is her employee and she did not deny in her deposition that whether the cheque-book and pass-book were in custody of said Pradip Paul. 21. In my considered view, true it is that initial presumption is drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque that she received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for discharge in whole or in part or any debt or any other liability. But at the same time, the holder is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is existence of any legally enforceable debt. In the case in hand, the complainant has failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she being the holder the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. On the contrary, the accused-respondent has successfully rebutted the initial presumption raised under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the trial court. 22. In the light of the discussion made above, in my considered opinion, the charge leveled against the accused-respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the order of acquittal of the accused-respondent vide judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed. 23. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.