JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.982/2016, whereby the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has the burden to prove that the cheque received by him was made towards the payment of any debt or liability and merely signature of respondent on the cheque is not enough to prove that there existed any legal liability. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant is a registered money-lender and is also a distant relative of the respondent and from time to time has lent money to the respondent. The respondent had taken loan of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Only) from the appellant for business purpose and for selling off his ancestral property/land to the appellant. As a partial payment towards the liability that had arisen as a result of the transactions, the respondent issued a multicity payee cheque dated 27/01/2016 of HDFC Bank, Bargarh Odisha having IFSC Code- HDFC0001817, bearing Cheque No.-036887 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only). Subsequently on 06/02/2016, the appellant had presented the cheque for encashment in his State Bank of India, S.M.E. Branch, Byron Bazar, Raipur account which was dishonored and returned by the bank vide Inward Return (CTS) Memo dated 10/02/2016. The appellant again on the request of respondent presented the cheque for encashment on 10/02/2016 to his bank, but it was again dishonoured and returned by the bank vide Inward Return (CTS) Memo dated 12/02/2016. It was informed that the amount could not be realized due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent. After receiving the intimation from the bank, the appellant issued notice dated 17/02/2016 to the respondent and asked for payment of cheque amount, but as the amount was not paid, therefore, the appellant was left with no other option but to file the complaint. The complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 28/03/2016. A Criminal Case No. 982/2016 was registered against the respondent before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 29/03/2016. 3. The complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 28/03/2016. A Criminal Case No. 982/2016 was registered against the respondent before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 29/03/2016. 3. During the trial witnesses were examined, evidence was recorded and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken. A copy of deposition of witnesses examined and exhibits in the Criminal Case No. 982/2016. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondent order dated 31/12/2018 on the ground that the appellant has the burden to prove that the cheque received by him was made towards the payment of any debt or liability and merely signature of respondent on the cheque is not enough to prove that there existed any legal liability. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order, has failed to appreciate that the burden of proof under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was on the respondent who has failed to discharge his burden. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 31/12/2018, has failed to appreciate the settled position of law that 'burden of proof that the cheque was issued for payment of debt or discharge of liability is on the accused unless and until he adduces cogent evidence to rebut the same.' He further contended that the learned trial Court in para Nos.8 and 9 of its impugned order dated 31/12/2018 has already held that it is proved from evidence of appellant that the cheque was issued to him by respondent towards discharge of legal debt or liability. Therefore, there existed a legal liability of the respondent towards the appellant and the learned trial court has erred in its finding in para 18 that there existed no liability of respondent towards the appellant. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 389, Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 138 & P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer and Another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1131. Looking to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 31/12/2018 is liable to be set-aside. 6. Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 138 & P. Rasiya Vs. Abdul Nazer and Another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1131. Looking to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 31/12/2018 is liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned trial Court is fully justified in acquitting the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel reliance has been placed in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal, the following was observed at para 25 : "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 7. He further contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and appeal filed by the learned counsel for the appellant be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), while acquitting the respondent observed that the complainant (P.W.-1) has stated in para-3 of his cross-examination that he also has a money lending business. He has a license for it. Every year he lends money to about ten people on interest and records the amount he gives and prepares the ledger, but the Complainant has accepted in para-9 of his cross-examination that he has not submitted the ledger with this complaint. The complainant has further stated in para-3 of his cross-examination that he is an income tax payer and submits income tax returns to the income tax department every year. The complainant has further stated in para-3 of his cross-examination that he is an income tax payer and submits income tax returns to the income tax department every year. But the complainant himself has stated that this year's income tax returns were filled by his younger brother Vijay Kumar Vas. He does not know how much income his brother has filled. He has only signed, not read. Also, the complainant has accepted in paragraph 09 of the cross-examination that he has not submitted income tax returns from 2005 to 2015. The complainant further stated that his brother Vijay Kumar Das is present in the court today and Vijay Kumar Das is his lawyer in this case. But the complainant has not produced the evidence of his brother Vijay Kumar Das in support of his entire statement. Thus, the complainant has neither presented any document in the case in support of his facts nor produced anyone's evidence, due to which the entire statement made by the complainant appears to be doubtful. 10. Complainant- Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) further stated that in the complaint and affidavit filed under Section145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, he has stated that he had given Rs. 14 lakhs to the accused for purchasing a residential plot of land. The said residential plot is in Bargarh and there was no written agreement in this regard. This witness has also stated in para-8 of his cross-examination that the notice of Ex.P.-4 was sent by his younger brother Vijay Kumar Das. Thus, the statement of the complainant is shown to be contradictory in itself. 11. This witness has further stated in cross-examination para-8 that when the cheque of Rs.11 lakh was dishonoured for the first time, he had sent a written notice to the accused through his advocate and when the cheque was dishonoured for the second time, he had also sent a notice to the accused. But in para-7, the complainant himself has admitted that he had lent Rs.14 lakh to the accused from time to time from 2005 to 2015. He has not mentioned this in his notice Ex.P.-04, complaint letter, Sections 138 and 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the notice issued by the complainant to the accused cannot be said to have been duly issued. 12. He has not mentioned this in his notice Ex.P.-04, complaint letter, Sections 138 and 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the notice issued by the complainant to the accused cannot be said to have been duly issued. 12. The trial Court opined that mere signatures on the cheque are not sufficient to presume that the cheque was given for legal liability. The burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the cheque given to him was given by the accused for payment of legal debt. In the filed complaint, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused received the amount of Rs.14,00,000/-from the complainant for selling the residential plot of his family land to the complainant and for some essential business use by him by coming to Raipur and completed his work and for payment of the said amount, he paid the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant as partial payment through HDFC Bank Bargarh District-Bargarh Odisha's A/C Payee Multicity Money Order No.-036887 dated 27.01.2016. Thus, the essential elements for the formation of the crime charged against the accused are not fulfilled. 13. Considering the facts of the case, the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that the appellant has a money-lending business and he has a license for it. He lends money to people on interest and records the amount he gives and prepares the ledger, but the Complainant has accepted in para-9 of his cross-examination that he has not submitted the ledger with this complaint. The complainant has further stated in para-3 of his cross-examination that he is an income tax payer and submits income tax returns to the income tax department every year, but the complainant himself has stated that this year's income tax returns were filled by his younger brother. He does not know how much income his brother has filled. He has only signed, not read. Also, the complainant has accepted in para-9 of his cross-examination that he has not submitted income tax returns from 2005 to 2015. 14. Further considering that in para-7 of the statement, the complainant himself has admitted that he had lent Rs.14 lakh to the accused from time to time from 2005 to 2015. He has only signed, not read. Also, the complainant has accepted in para-9 of his cross-examination that he has not submitted income tax returns from 2005 to 2015. 14. Further considering that in para-7 of the statement, the complainant himself has admitted that he had lent Rs.14 lakh to the accused from time to time from 2005 to 2015. He has not mentioned this in his notice Ex.P.-04, complaint case under Section 138 and affidavit filed under Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thus, the notice issued by the complainant to the accused cannot be said to have been duly issued. 15. Further considering that the trial Court opined that mere signatures on the cheque are not sufficient to presume that the cheque was given for legal liability. The burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the cheque given to him was given by the accused for payment of legal debt. In the complaint, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused received the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the complainant for selling the residential plot of his family land to the complainant and for some essential business use by him by coming to Raipur and completed his work and for payment of the said amount, he paid the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant as partial payment through HDFC Bank Bargarh District-Bargarh Odisha's A/C Payee Multicity Money Order No.-036887 dated 27.01.2016. Thus, the essential elements for the formation of the crime charged against the accused are not fulfilled. 16. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent from aforesaid offence and I have found that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any ground to allow the instant acquittal appeal. 17. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the instant acquittal appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. 18. Accordingly, the instant acquittal appeal stands dismissed.