JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - In the complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the present respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'N.I.Act'), the learned XVIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & XX Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), by the judgment dated 27.09.2008, passed in C.C.No.30452/2006, convicted the accused for the said offence and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, City Fast Track (Sessions) Court, Bengaluru City (F.T.C.No.VI), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Fast Track Court'), in Criminal Appeal No.847/2008, which by its judgment dated 06.07.2010, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that, the accused being known to him for the past several years, availed a loan of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from him in cash on 15.2.2006 to set right his domestic and business problem. After receiving a hand loan, the accused had issued two cheques bearing No.687570, dated 15.7.2006, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a cheque bearing No.687526, dated 30.7.2006, for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, both drawn on UCO Bank, Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented both the cheques, they returned dishonoured with the Banker's endorsement as 'funds insufficient', on 8.8.2006. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 14.8.2006 to the accused through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and under Certificate of Posting calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due was returned unserved to the sendor on 31.8.2006 with the shara 'intimation delivered and not claimed'. This constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case in the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 3. The respondent who was the accused in the trial Court appeared and contested the matter. This constrained the complainant to institute a criminal case in the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of 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 himself as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-12. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and other two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and got marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-10. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 27.09.2008, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, however, in the appeal, the Fast Track Court acquitted the accused of the said offence. 5. The trial Court and Fast Track Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing and also considering the fact that this appeal was ten years old appeal, this Court by its order dated 10.9.2020, appointed learned counsel Dr.J.S.Halasetti, as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. 7. Heard the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 9. After hearing, the points that arise for my consideration 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 judgments under appeal deserve an interference at the hands of this Court? 10. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in his argument submitted that the issuance of the cheques and signatures thereupon are admitted by the accused. The notice sent to the accused through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due since has returned as 'not claimed' despite delivering the intimation, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the alleged offence. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in his argument submitted that the issuance of the cheques and signatures thereupon are admitted by the accused. The notice sent to the accused through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due since has returned as 'not claimed' despite delivering the intimation, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the alleged offence. However, the Fast Track Court while reasoning that there was no legally enforceable debt and the notice has remained unserved and also that the accused has rebutted the presumption formed in favour of the complainant, has reversed the judgment of the trial Court by setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused guilty of the alleged offence. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that when there was valid tendering of the notice by the complainant to the accused, it is deemed service of notice upon him. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Bhaskaran vs- Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and others,MANU/SC/0625/1999. He also submitted that the summons sent to the accused to the very same address through the Court has been served upon him. Thus, the finding of the Fast Track Court deserves to be set aside while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent in his argument submitted that PW-1 in his cross-examination itself has clearly stated that he does not know the address of the accused. There is no material to show that the notices sent to the accused were to his correct address. On the other hand, the accused by producing a Life Insurance Policy at Ex.D-10, has shown that he is not residing at the address to which the legal notices were sent. As such, the Fast Track Court has rightly held that there was no service of notice upon the accused. He also stated that about the alleged correctness of the address canvassed by the complainant, no suggestion was made to DW-1 in his cross-examination. On the other hand, the contention of the accused that those two cheques were given to the complainant in the year 2001 towards alleged chit business has remained undenied and undisputed. As such also, the Fast Track Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. 12. On the other hand, the contention of the accused that those two cheques were given to the complainant in the year 2001 towards alleged chit business has remained undenied and undisputed. As such also, the Fast Track Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. 12. The complainant got himself examined as PW-1, who in his examination-in-chief filed in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his complaint. In support of his complaint, he has marked two dishonoured cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2, with the signatures of the accused therein at Ex.P-1(a) and Ex.P-2(a), two Bank endorsements at Exs.P-3 and P-4, a copy of the legal notice at Ex.P-5, three postal receipts and three returned unserved postal covers at Exs.P-6, P-7, P-8, P- 9, P-10 and P-11 respectively. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side. 13. The accused got himself examined as DW-1, who in his examination-in-chief filed in the form of affidavit evidence has stated that complainant was known to him since from ten to fifteen years. He was running a chit business from the year 1994-1995, in which, during the year 2000, he (accused) was also a member with his younger brother M.K.Nagaraj (DW-2) and Venkatesh Prasad (DW-3) and some others. The complainant who was used to take blank cheques for security purpose, had also taken blank cheques signed by him for the purpose of security. DW-1 further stated that, though he paid the chit amount regularly, but, after the completion of the chit, the complainant did not return the said two blank cheques and has misused them in the year 2006 in the form of Exs.P-1 and P-2 and has filed a false complaint against him. He also contended that there was no loan transaction as alleged by the complainant and that no notice regarding the dishonour of the cheques was ever served upon him at any address. He further stated that the address shown on the notice is a wrong address and he (accused) resides in a different address. In his support, the accused marked a Lease Agreement at Ex.D-1, his Bank statement at Ex.D-2, few chits alleging that they pertain to chit business at Exs.D-3 to D-9 and a Life Insurance Policy standing in his name at Ex.D-10. 14. In his support, the accused marked a Lease Agreement at Ex.D-1, his Bank statement at Ex.D-2, few chits alleging that they pertain to chit business at Exs.D-3 to D-9 and a Life Insurance Policy standing in his name at Ex.D-10. 14. The accused also got examined one Sri M.K.Nagaraj and one Sri Venkatesh Prasad as DW-2 and DW-3 respectively, who in their examination-in-chief filed in the form of affidavit evidence have stated that the complainant was running a chit transaction from the year 1995, wherein, they were also the members. The complainant was collecting blank cheques from the members of the chit as security. Accordingly, they too had given few blank cheques to the complainant, however, even after completing the chit amount, the complainant did not return those cheques to them. The denial suggestions made to them in their cross-examination were not admitted as true by them. 15. From the above evidence led from both side, the undisputed fact remains that the complainant and the accused were known to each other for several years. The dishonoured cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2, which are for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- respectively, are drawn upon the account of the accused and those two cheques were given by the accused to the complainant. The signatures at Exs.P-1(a) and P-2(a) are also admitted to be the signatures of the accused. However, the point of dispute is whether those two cheques were issued towards the repayment of the alleged loan as contended by the complainant. 16. Section 139 of N.I.Act, leads to a presumption about the existence of legally enforceable debt, provided it is proved that the cheque has been issued to the complainant, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. In the instant case, since the accused himself has stated that those two cheques were given by him to the complainant, prima facie, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant. However, as observed above, the said presumption is rebuttable. In order to rebut the said presumption, the accused, apart from leading his evidence as DW-1, has also got examined two more witnesses from his side as DW-2 and DW-3. He has also produced the documents from Exs.D-1 to D-10. The contention of the accused is that those two cheques were given to the complainant when he was running a chit from the year 1994-1995 to 2001. He has also produced the documents from Exs.D-1 to D-10. The contention of the accused is that those two cheques were given to the complainant when he was running a chit from the year 1994-1995 to 2001. However, the complainant without returning those cheques after clearance of chit transaction, has misused those two cheques. DW-2 and DW-3 have stated that they too have suffered the same experience at the hands of the complainant. In order to show that the complainant was running a chit business, the accused has produced few chits from Exs.D-3 to D-9. On perusal of those chits, no where it is shown that they were issued by any particular person or for any particular purpose. Admittedly, those chits neither bear the name nor the signature of any person, much less, of the complainant. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that no where in the crossexamination of DW-1, it was suggested to the witness from the complainant's side that Exs.D-3 to D-9 does not pertain to the alleged chit business alleged to have been run by the complainant. Therefore, the evidence of DW-1 with respect to Exs.D-3 to D-9 has remained unshaken. Similarly, the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 that the complainant was running a chit business is also not specifically and categorically denied from the complainant's side, rather, in the cross-examination of those two witnesses, some more details regarding the alleged chit business of the complainant were elicited. No suggestion was made to DW-2 and DW-3 suggesting at least that the complainant was not running any chit business and that Exs.D-3 to D-9 are in no way connected or related to the complainant. Further, it was also not suggested to DW-2 and DW-3 that complainant has never demanded or collected any cheques, at least, the blank cheques from any of the chit members, including, DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. Therefore, the evidence of DWs.1 to 3 to the effect that complainant was running chit business and during the said business, he had collected blank cheques from DWs.1 to 3, including the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2, has remained undenied. 17. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he had given a hand loan to the accused and in return of which, the accused had issued those two cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2, stands without any corroboration and is hard to believe the same. 17. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he had given a hand loan to the accused and in return of which, the accused had issued those two cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2, stands without any corroboration and is hard to believe the same. The presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant, since he was the 'payee' under those two cheques, also has weakened and has stood rebutted by the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, who could make out a preponderance of possibility in their favour about the alleged chit business said to have been run by the complainant and about the complainant collecting the blank cheques from the chit members, including the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2 from the accused. In such an event, the onus of proving the alleged existence of legally enforceable debt was reverted to the complainant who was required to prove the same, which he failed to discharge. However, the trial Court without analysing these aspects, has considered the fact that the accused has not denied that the cheques at Exs.P-1 and P-2 were belonging to him and that they were dishonoured when presented for realisation, has jumped to a conclusion that those cheques were issued towards the legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant. However, the Fast Track Court analysing the evidence afresh, has rightly arrived at a finding that the trial Court has committed an error on the said point. 18. The next point canvassed by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant is regarding the service of notice. The trial Court acting upon the postal shara shown to have been made on the returned notices at Exs.P-9 to P-11, held that there is deemed service of notice. According to the accused, the addresses shown in those notices are in no way his addresses and they are strange addresses to him. In order to show that he resides at a different address, the accused has produced a copy of Life Insurance Policy standing in his name and marked it as Ex.D-10, wherein, the address of the policy holder (accused) is shown to be a different address than the one at Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11. In order to show that he resides at a different address, the accused has produced a copy of Life Insurance Policy standing in his name and marked it as Ex.D-10, wherein, the address of the policy holder (accused) is shown to be a different address than the one at Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11. Further, the evidence of DW-1 that the address to which the legal notices were said to have been sent is not his correct address and that he resides in the address as shown in Ex.D-10, has not been specifically denied in the crossexamination of complainant. A perusal of Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11 shows that the postal authority has returned those three registered postal covers said to have been containing the legal notices in them to the sendor with the endorsement 'ID-N/C', which according to the complainant is 'intimation delivered not claimed'. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in support of his argument relied upon K.Bhaskaran's case (supra), and contended that a postal article sent to the correct address by registered post is deemed to have been served upon him even though he has not claimed it. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment in a similar case under Section 138 of N.I.Act, wherein also the notice was returned to the complainant/sendor with the postal shara 'unclaimed', was pleased to hold that, when a notice has been dispatched by post with correct address written on it, then, it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he is not responsible for such non-service. In the instant case, the very contention of the accused is that the address shown on Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11 are not his addresses. As already observed above, the address of the accused shown in Ex.D-10 is a different address than the one shown in Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11. The accused has also produced a Lease Agreement with respect to a shop at Ex.D-1 which also go to show that the accused has taken a shop premises for lease from its Lessor on 14.11.2007 in a shopping complex called Sri LHGRR Complex, built in the land bearing Survey No.98/1, property No.45 and 46 and located in the 1st cross, 1st Main, Laggere Village, Bengaluru-560 058. None of the three postal covers at Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11 bears the said address in its completeness. No doubt, all the three covers were sent to Laggere, Bengaluru-560 058, however, the rest of the details of the shop varies from the one shown in Ex.D-1. 20. Added to this, admittedly, the Lease Agreement under Ex.D-1 is dated 14.11.2007, whereas, the legal notices were sent in August 2006 and returned to the sendor in the same month, as such, it was much before the accused entered into the Lease Agreement under Ex.D-1. Thus, the argument of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the address shown in Ex.D- 1 corresponds with the address shown in Exs.P-9 to P-11, is also not acceptable. In such a circumstance, when the accused has shown that as on the date of the notice under Exs.P-9 to P-11, he was residing at a different address as shown in Ex.D-10 and that the complainant has not placed any material to show that Exs.P-9 to P-11 depicts the correct and complete address of the accused, it cannot be expected that, a mere postal endorsement as 'ID-N/C' would lead to believe that those notices were tendered to the accused by the Postman. As such, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Bhaskaran's case (supra) relied upon by the complainant would not enure to his benefit. However, the trial Court even on this point also has banked upon the postal endorsements shown at Exs.P-9 to P-11 and without considering the evidence of the accused, both oral and documentary, regarding the non-service of notice upon him and also the proof of separate address of the accused as shown in Ex.D-10, jumped to a conclusion that there was deemed service of notice upon the accused. This has led the trial Court to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. However, the Fast Track Court in the appeal before it after noticing the error committed by the trial Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. 21. This has led the trial Court to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. However, the Fast Track Court in the appeal before it after noticing the error committed by the trial Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. 21. Since the above reasoning given and analysis made have clearly shown that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I.Act and that the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt after rebuttal of the presumption and also since the complainant could not able to prove that there was valid giving of legal notice to the accused at his proper and correct address, it has to be held that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged guilt punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Since the Fast Track Court has rightly come to the said conclusion and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said judgment of the Fast Track Court. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, City Fast Track (Sessions) Court, Bengaluru City (F.T.C.No.VI), in Criminal Appeal No.847/2008, dated 06.07.2010, by setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned XVIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & XX Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru City, in C.C.No.30452/2006, dated 27.09.2008, and 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 trial Court and Fast Track Court's records to the concerned Courts without delay. The Court while acknowledging the service rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Dr.J.S.Halasetti, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs. 3,000/- to him payable by the Registry.