JUDGMENT : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. Impugning the judgments of acquittal in Criminal Appeal Nos.416, 418 and 417 of 2006, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, dated 07.11.2008, the Appellant / Complainant preferred the present appeals. 2. Appellant herein is the Complainant and Respondent No.1 herein is the Accused before the trial Court. 3. Since the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in all the three appeals are one and the same, they are decided together by way of this common judgment. 4. The case of the Complainant in brief is as follows : Accused and one M.V.V.S.N. Malleswara Rao were carrying Film Distribution business at Vijayawada under the name and style of Omkar Film Distributors and the Accused had obtained rights of exhibition of the film ‘Tagore’ for old Guntur District and they offered to sell the rights of exhibition of the said film in Tenali for Rs.15 lakhs and had given a letter dated 20.09.2003 to that effect. As per the understanding in the said letter, the Complainant was entitled for collections from theatre excluding the rent of the theatre. Accused informed the Complainant that he was going to exhibit the film in Laxmi Deluxe and Gaiti theatres and asked the Complainant to receive the collections. When the Complainant went to the said theatres for collections, he was informed that they have advanced some amount to Omkar Film Distributors and they were crediting the collection towards their advance. When the Complainant questioned the Accused and his partner, they gave a demand draft for Rs.1,92,000/- and promised to pay the balance shortly. On repeated demands of the Complainant, The accused and his partner issued give post dated cheques in discharge of the debt due to him. On presentation of the cheque dated 20.08.2004 for collection, the same was bounced. When it was informed to the Accused, he paid the amount covered under the said cheque and the Complainant returned the said cheque to the Accused. Thereafter, when the Complainant presented the cheque dated 28.05.2004 for collection in Andhra Bank, Kollur, the same was bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the Accused. Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the Accused did not pay the amount. 5. Accused faced trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,[For short ‘NI Act’]. Thereafter, when the Complainant presented the cheque dated 28.05.2004 for collection in Andhra Bank, Kollur, the same was bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the Accused. Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the Accused did not pay the amount. 5. Accused faced trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,[For short ‘NI Act’]. During the course of trial P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. Accused did not choose to adduce any offence on his behalf. 6. Learned trial Judge, after hearing the learned counsel representing both parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the Accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in C.C.Nos.198, 325 and 221 of 2004 respectively on 25.09.2006. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgments of conviction, the Accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.416, 418 and 417 of 2006, respectively on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali. The learned Appellate Judge reversed the judgments of the trial Court on the ground that the Accused can rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act by cross examining the Complainant and he can bring the material before the Court in the evidence of the Complainant and his witnesses. It was held by the learned Appellate Judge that though the signature on the cheque was admitted by the Accused, that is not suffice to find him guilty unless it is established that the subject cheques were given in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Judge acquitted the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 8. The Complainant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments of the Appellate Court, preferred the present Criminal Appeals on the following grounds : (i) Learned Appellate Judge without considering the evidence on record, set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court only on the ground that the Complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for discharging legally enforceable subsisting debt. (ii) The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the Accused and one M.V.V.S.N. Malleswara Rao, who are the partners of Omkar Film Distribution, towards his share guaranteed and the Accused had given a letter on 20.09.2003 to that effect. Accused and his partner failed to handover the said film to the Complainant for the purpose of exhibition in Tenali, but they have issued cheques for the purpose of discharge of the Rs.15 lakhs. Accused did not give any reply to the statutory notice issued by the Complainant, but on the other hand, admitted his signatures on the said cheques. (iii) As per Section 139 of N.I.Act, the presumption is in favour of the Complainant. 9. Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the Appellant, who is on record has not been turning up to submit arguments. Since it is a criminal appeal, this Court cannot dismiss the case for non-prosecution. As can be seen from the docket proceedings, notice which was sent to the Accused was returned unserved as “no such person in the address”. Hence, this Court heard the case on behalf of the Accused from Smt. Dr. S. Rajani, as an Amicus Curiae. 10. Heard and perused the material on record. 11. As can be seen from the material on record, the learned trial Judge found the Accused guilty mostly by relying on one factor that he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. By considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the silence on the part of Accused in deposing before the Court, the learned trial Judge found him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 12. Needless to say that, when the Complainant is able to establish the foundational facts before the Court, then the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act would come to his rescue. It is apt to mention that this presumption is rebuttable. In Krishna Janardhan Butt vs. Dattatreya, 2008 (4) ALD (Crl.) 485, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act is a rebuttable one. For the purpose of rebutting the said presumption, the Accused need not enter into the witness box and he can successfully improbablise the case of the Complainant by cross examining the Complainant's witnesses. For the purpose of rebutting the said presumption, the Accused need not enter into the witness box and he can successfully improbablise the case of the Complainant by cross examining the Complainant's witnesses. Needful to state that the Accused need not establish his case beyond reasonable cause and he can rebut the presumption simply by raising a doubt to believe the case of the Complainant touching the veracity of the witnesses. Accused can improbablise the case of the Complainant that, though the cheque contains his signature, it was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the contention of the Complainant that Accused is one of the partners of Omkar Film Distribution. In relation to purchase of rights to distribute the film "Tagore", the subject cheques have been issued to the Complainant. It is also the version of the Complainant that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs is due to him. The subject cheques have been issued for an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- each. No explanation is forthcoming as to how these figures were arrived at. It is pertinent to note that the undertaking letter alleged to have been executed by the Accused does not contain his signature. On the other hand, no iota of evidence has been placed before the Court to show that the Accused is one of the partners of said Omkar Film Distributions. Ex.P.2 undertaking letter further shows the name of one M.V.V.S.N. Malleswara Rao as Proprietor of Omkar Film Distribution. Such being the case, the question of arraying the Accused as a Partner of Omkar Film Distribution, does not arise. Simply because the Accused had not chosen to examine himself as a witness, does not automatically establish his guilt for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 14. In the light of the judgment referred to supra, while appreciating the evidence in a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the Court cannot reverse the judgment simply because another opinion is possible, unless the finding of the learned Judge is perverse or not tenable under law. In the absence of such findings, this Court cannot reverse the judgment of the Appellate Judge since the presumption of innocence is in favour of the Accused. 15. In the absence of such findings, this Court cannot reverse the judgment of the Appellate Judge since the presumption of innocence is in favour of the Accused. 15. In the light of the aforementioned premises, this Court does not find any force in the contention of the Appellant / Complainant. In that view the impugned judgments of the Appellate Court do not brook interference of this Court in the present appeals. 16. In the result, the criminal appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.