JUDGMENT : Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the XV Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.4409/2018 dated 4.1.2019. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused has remained absent. There is no representation. 4. The facts in brief of the complainant’s case is that complainant and accused were working in the same institution and in the month of April 2017, accused approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000/and complainant gave the same. Accused agreed to pay interest @ 12% per annum and also agreed to repay the said amount within six months. Accused in order to repay the said loan amount, has issued two cheques bearing Nos.718389 and 718390 dated 30.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/and Rs.3,35,000/respectively. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. The Bank has issued Memo dated 14.12.2017 and 16.12.2017 respectively. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice on 9.1.2018 and it was duly served on the accused on 12.1.2018. Despite service of notice, accused has not replied and repaid the said amount. As such, the complaint was registered. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and secure the presence of the accused. After following the formalities, plea of the accused was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 9 documents. On behalf of the accused, accused was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted the accused by dismissing the complaint. 5. The defense taken by the respondent-accused is that the said cheques have been misplaced when the same were kept in a bag on the table of the complainant and in this regard, a complaint has been registered as per Ex.D1. However, no action has been taken as against Ex.D1. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and materials placed on record. However, no action has been taken as against Ex.D1. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and materials placed on record. The learned trial Judge has erroneously passed the impugned order of acquittal. It is his further submission that the signatures found on the cheques Exs.P1 and P2 and signature on the vakalath and deposition of the accused are similar. The Court below ought to have compared the said signatures as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act and could have given a finding whether the signatures on Exs.P1 and P2 are that of accused or not. Without giving any finding, the defense of the accused has been accepted and acquittal order has been passed. He further submitted that a false defense has been taken, which has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. If there is any dispute with regard to signatures founds on Exs.P1 and P2, the disputed and admitted signatures could be sent to expert’s opinion, but that opportunity has also not been given by the trial Court. Hence, he prays to remit the case to the lower Court to reconsider all these aspects and thereafter, pass orders on merits. It is his further submission that notice issued to the respondent had been served on the accused on 12.1.2018 and no reply has been given. It is not in dispute that the cheques belong to the accused and that immediately after coming to know of the fact of missing of cheques, he has not issued any instructions to the Bank for stop payment. The said conduct of the accused itself clearly shows that only in order to overcome and avoid the payment of the loan amount, a false defense has been taken and the same has been accepted by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Admittedly, notice has been served on the accused on 12.1.2018 and he has not given any reply to the said notice. The main defense of the accused is that the said cheques were missing and they have been misused by the complainant. He has also denied the signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2. 8. Admittedly, notice has been served on the accused on 12.1.2018 and he has not given any reply to the said notice. The main defense of the accused is that the said cheques were missing and they have been misused by the complainant. He has also denied the signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2. On a bare perusal of the signatures found on Exs.P1 and P2 with other signature of the accused, they appear to be one and the same. But only on bare perusal, it cannot be held that the said signatures belong to the accused. Hence, if the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures are sent to the opinion of the expert, it will determine the point in issue. 9. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remitted to the Court below to give an opportunity to the appellant to file appropriate application, if he is advised to do so, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. Even the Court below has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It could have compared the signatures on its own and given a finding. Taking into consideration the above said aspects, the other issues which have been raised before this Court, if they are dealt with, it would prejudice both the parties, hence, they have not been considered. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the XV Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.4409/2018 dated 4.1.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below to dispose of the same as observed above, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Registry to send back the lower Court records forthwith.