JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present appellant was the complainant in the Court of the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court"), in C.C.No.14102/2007, which case was filed against the present respondent arraigning him as accused, under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C."), for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "N.I.Act"). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that, she was a tenant under the accused in his residential property situate at Deepanjalinagara, Bengaluru 560 056. In that regard, an understanding between them was entered into under which the accused had received a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as an advance amount towards the lease amount which was refundable on the lessee (complainant) vacating the premises. After the complainant vacated the premises, the accused returned the lease amount of Rs. 45,000/- vide Cheque bearing No.469856 dated 12-12-2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Byatarayanapura Branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque on 04-04-2007 for its realisation through her banker. But the said cheque came to be dishonoured with the banker's shara 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a statutory notice upon the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. Since the accused failed to meet the demand made therein, the complainant was constrained to institute a complaint against the accused in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The respondent who was the accused in the Trial Court appeared and contested the matter. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-7. On behalf of the accused, the accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked a sole document, i.e. Account details Certificate at Ex.D-1. 4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 03-01-2011, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 5. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. 4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 03-01-2011, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 5. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Initially, both the parties in this matter were appearing through their respective counsels. However, when the matter was taken up for its final hearing on several dates, since the learned counsels appearing for both the parties failed to appear either physically or through video conference, this Court, by its order dated 22-09-2020, appointed Amicus Curiae for both the appellant and the respondent. As such, learned counsels Smt. P.V. Kalpana, and Sri. D. Nagaraja Reddy, were appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and respondent respectively and as such, they are appearing for both the parties in this appeal. 7. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court records. 8. After hearing the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for both the parties, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are : 1) Whether the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act as alleged in the complaint? 2) Whether the judgment under appeal deserves an interference at the hands of this Court? 9. The complainant got herself examined as PW-1, who in her examination-in-chief, in the form of affidavit evidence, has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in the complaint. In support of her oral evidence, she has produced the original dishonoured cheque, the banker's endorsement showing the reason for dishonour of the cheque at Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. She also produced a copy of the legal notice at Ex.P-3 and the postal acknowledgement card, postal receipt and Certificate of Posting at Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6 respectively. The complainant also produced a lease agreement and marked at as Ex.P-7. The defendant got examined one Sri. J. Prakash, who is said to be the Branch Manager of Canara Bank of Byatarayanapura Branch, Bengaluru as DW-1 and got marked an Accounts details Certificate said to have been issued by DW-1 at Ex.D-1. 10. The accused has not denied the alleged lessor and lessee relationship between himself and the complainant. The defendant got examined one Sri. J. Prakash, who is said to be the Branch Manager of Canara Bank of Byatarayanapura Branch, Bengaluru as DW-1 and got marked an Accounts details Certificate said to have been issued by DW-1 at Ex.D-1. 10. The accused has not denied the alleged lessor and lessee relationship between himself and the complainant. He has not denied or disputed the lease agreement at Ex.P-7. However, his specific contention is that, the cheque in question, i.e. Ex.P-1 was not issued by him and it does not bear his signature. 11. Relying on this aspect, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant/complainant in her argument submitted that, when the accused has not denied the relationship of lessor and lessee and also the contents of lease agreement at Ex.P-7, from the very document at Ex.P-7, which is a lease agreement, it can be seen that, on the termination of lease, the lessor, who is the accused herein, was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the lessee who is the complainant. Accordingly, the cheque at Ex.P-1 was issued by him. The said cheque admittedly has stood dishonoured when presented for realisation, as could be seen from Exs.P-1 and P-2. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused in his argument submitted that Ex.P-7 lease agreement and the alleged former relationship between the accused and the complainant as lessor and lessee though is taken as not in dispute, still, the very same agreement at its end goes to show that out of Rs. 45,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- had already been paid to the lessee , i.e. the complainant, as such, as on the date of the presentation of the cheque, there was no legally enforceable debt equivalent to the cheque amount. Further, the cheque in question also does not belong to and pertain to the account of the accused. As such, the complainant, by producing some stranger's strange cheque, has falsely filed a case against the accused, which has been rightly recognised by the Trial Court, leading it to acquit the accused from the alleged offence. 13. Pw-1, no doubt, has stated that the cheque at Ex.P-1 was given to her by the accused, however, in the very same cross-examination of PW-1, the accused has specifically suggested to the witness that neither the cheque at Ex.P-1 pertains to him nor it bears his signature. 13. Pw-1, no doubt, has stated that the cheque at Ex.P-1 was given to her by the accused, however, in the very same cross-examination of PW-1, the accused has specifically suggested to the witness that neither the cheque at Ex.P-1 pertains to him nor it bears his signature. The very witness, i.e. PW-1 has also further admitted as true a suggestion that the signature found on the postal acknowledgement card at Ex.P-4 differs from the one found at Ex.P-1. The accused, in order to show that the cheque at Ex.P-1 does not pertain to him and that he is a stranger to the said cheque, examined the Branch Manager of the Bank which has issued the said cheque at Ex.P-1 to the said account holder. The said witness, entering the witness box as DW-1, has clearly stated that, the account to which the cheque at Ex.P-1 pertains to, stands in the name of one Ms. Mary Gracy. In that regard, he has also produced a Certificate issued by him and got it marked as Ex.D-1. Even in the said Certificate also, it is clearly stated that the said account to which the cheque in question belongs stands in the name of one Smt. Mary Gracy and the accused namely Papaiah has got nothing to do with the said account. Therefore, it is clear that though the complainant contends that the cheque at Ex.P-1 was given to her by the accused, but the evidence placed before the Court goes to show that the said cheque does not belong to the accused. Further, it is neither the evidence nor the documentary proof placed by the complainant to the effect that the accused himself was either payee or holder of said instrument at Ex.P-1 and he had endorsed the same in her favour, as such, she is a holder in due course of the said instrument. On the other hand, the very instrument at Ex.P-1 goes to show that the present complainant herself is shown as the original payee in whose favour the said instrument is shown to have been drawn by the drawer. On the other hand, the very instrument at Ex.P-1 goes to show that the present complainant herself is shown as the original payee in whose favour the said instrument is shown to have been drawn by the drawer. That being the case, when the accused is not the drawer of the said instrument, nor even he has endorsed the said cheque in favour of the complainant nor even there is any evidence to believe that the said cheque was given by the accused to the complainant, it cannot be held that the accused had issued the said cheque at Ex.P-1 to the complainant. 14. The above view also gets support for one more reason that, when even according to the complainant, towards a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, said to have been received by her, as a partial refund of the lease amount under Ex.P-7, she has obtained an endorsement to that effect in the lease agreement, then, nothing had prevented her from obtaining a similar endorsement in the very same agreement to the effect that the cheque in Ex.P-1 was given by the accused to her towards the refund of the said lease amount. Had such an endorsement been obtained in Ex.P-7 by the complainant, probably the same would have come to the rescue of the complainant to establish a nexus between the alleged lease agreement and the alleged issuance of cheque to the complainant. No effort in that regard also has been made. As such, there is no reason to believe that the accused had issued the cheque at Ex.P-1 to the complainant. Secondly, even for argument sake, if it is taken that the cheque at Ex.P-1 was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, still, a perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P-7 would go to show that, out of the total liability of Rs. 45,000/-, the accused is said to have repaid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 18-02-2007 and to that effect, a specific endorsement is made in Ex.P-7 and PW-1 also has admitted the same in her cross-examination. Thus, the cheque at Ex.P-1 admittedly was presented for its realisation to the banker only on 04-04-2007. 45,000/-, the accused is said to have repaid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 18-02-2007 and to that effect, a specific endorsement is made in Ex.P-7 and PW-1 also has admitted the same in her cross-examination. Thus, the cheque at Ex.P-1 admittedly was presented for its realisation to the banker only on 04-04-2007. That being the case, even according to the complainant, as on the date of the presentation of the cheque for its realisation, there was no outstanding legally enforceable debt to the entirety of the cheque amount payable by the accused to the complainant. As such, as on the date of presentation of the cheque also, there was no legally enforceable debt to the extent of the amount shown in the cheque at Ex.P-1. Thus, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae on the said point that the cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt is not acceptable. On the other hand, the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent that there existed no legally enforceable debt is required to be accepted. 15. The Trial Court, appreciating the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective, has come to a correct finding of acquitting the accused of the alleged offence punishable under the N.I. Act. I find no reasons to interfere in it. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The Criminal Appeal is dismissed . The impugned judgment passed by the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City, in C.C.No.14102/2007, dated 03-01-2011, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is confirmed. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Court, without delay. The Court while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Smt. P.V. Kalpana for the appellant and Sri. D. Nagaraja Reddy for the respondent, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs. 3,000/- each to the learned Amicus Curiae payable by the Registry.