JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.13970/2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/appellant before the Trial Court that the respondent/accused is known to him and accused requested the complainant from second week of January to first week of March, 2003 to make the money of Rs.3,00,000/- with an assurance to pay the said amount within a month stating that he would pay the amount immediately after clearance of the Government bill of contract work and believing the words of the accused, the complainant made the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash on 10.04.2003 and the accused issued the subject matter of the Cheque dated 09.05.2003 for repayment of the said amount. When the said Cheque was presented before the bank, it was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, thus, the complainant contacted the accused in this regard and the accused requested to present the said Cheque after three weeks and again the complainant presented the said Cheque for the second time on 05.06.2003 and once again the said cheque returned with an endorsement as ‘insufficient funds’. After dishonour of the Cheque twice, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused through RPAD as well as UCP but the accused did not make any payment inspite of service of notice through UCP. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint. 4. The Trial Court took the cognizance and the accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as DW1 and examined six witnesses as DW2 to DW7 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D16. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as DW1 and examined six witnesses as DW2 to DW7 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D16. 5. The accused appeared and took the specific defence that the subject matter of the Cheque was given towards security of chit fund loan in the hands of one Rajamma and Kempegowda who were running the chit business and the said Cheque was also handed over in the year 2000 and there was a balance of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- in respect of chit fund and his wife also executed the sale deed in respect of R.S.No.120/1 measuring 29 guntas, Maralaga village in the name of Kempegowda’s mother Javaramma on 12.08.2008 and on the same day, Rajamma and Kempegowda handed over one Cheque and two pronotes and told that one Cheque is lost and taking undue advantage of the said Cheque, Rajamma and Kempegowda got filed this complaint through the complainant. It is also his case that he has intimated the bank not to accept the Cheque on 25.03.2003. Hence, there is no any liability to pay Cheque amount and hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint. 6. The Trial Court at the first instance, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 26.03.2009 and against the said judgment, the complainant preferred a criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.600/2009 before the High Court of Karnataka and as per the order dated 27.01.2014, this Court set aside the judgment and matter was remanded to the Trial Court to record the evidence of the accused in accordance with law and also directed to dispose of the same within a time bound period. Thereafter, accused led his evidence and complainant not led any evidence. Thereafter, accused led his evidence and complainant not led any evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record accepted the defence of the accused and disbelieved the case of the complainant for having lent the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- particularly taking note of document at Ex.D2 dated 25.03.2003 wherein stop payment was given ever prior to the date of the Cheque wherein clearly mentioned the Cheque number and also did not accept the case of the complainant since he says that he gave the money in 100 and 50 denominations of two bundles and it comes to Rs.30,000/- not Rs.3,00,000/-. The Trial Court also taken note of the proceedings which have been taken before the Registrar of the Co-operative Society; registration of the case; copy of the complaint given to the police; statements of Kempegowda, Ranga Lakshmamma, Singrigowda, Hirigowda, Jawaharla, Rajamma; copy of the complaint given to the Society; order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Society, Mandya and thereby accepted the theory of the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the defence of the accused inspite of Cheque was admitted and signature was also admitted and also the documents were placed on record at Ex.P1 to P10. It is also contend that in view of Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, the Court has to presume that Cheque had been issued for discharging of debt or liability. But the Trial Court fails to take note of he material on record as well as the endorsement which was issued only on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’ and not on the basis of request to stop the payment in terms of Ex.D2. The counsel further contend that DW2 who has been examined in support of the document at Ex.D2 has categorically admitted that inward number was not mentioned and date could be mentioned if any letter is received from the bank and they going to put the seal, number and date but these things are not found at Ex.D2 and only initial is found at Ex.D2 and there is no signature. The same was not mentioned in Ex.D15 regarding the alleged letter and it is also contend that DW2 was not that Manager and he do not know whether the alleged letter dated 25.03.2003 was acknowledged on the very same day. 8. The counsel further contend that in the evidence of DW3 and DW4, they have denied the suggestions regarding chit fund transaction and repayment of chit fund and amount by the accused and retention of Ex.P2 with them inspite of repayment of entire dues and the Trial Court fails to take note of the said fact into consideration. The counsel would vehemently contend that though several witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused, they do not know about the transaction and evidence of DW1 to DW7 will not helpful regarding chit transaction is concerned since there is no material on record before the Court to show that there was a chit transaction and in the absence of any material for running of chit business, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. 9. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2023 SC 5018 in the case of RAJESH JAIN vs AJAY SINGH and brought to notice of this Court that when the signature of accused on Cheque was unchallenged, allowing presumption as to legally enforceable debt to take effect, High Courts erroneously questioned complainant’s lack of evidence to support loan claim instead of focusing on whether accused had successfully discharged his burden to show absence of any debt at time of issuing Cheque, hence, the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and brought to notice of this Court the discussions made in paragraphs 47, 53, 54, 55, 60, 62 and 63 wherein discussion was made that accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that instrument was not received in discharge of debt or liability and if he adduces acceptable evidence, the burden again shifts to the complainant and discussion was made that accused has neither replied to the demand notice nor has led any rebuttal evidence in support of his case. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would vehemently contend that the order of acquittal is on two times. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would vehemently contend that the order of acquittal is on two times. Earlier also, at the first round, the respondent was acquitted and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The specific defence was taken that Cheque was issued in favour of Rajamma and also Ex.D2 was given on 09.03.2003 itself and also Ex.P2 is issued by Maralaga Branch on 09.05.2003 and Ex.P4 and P6 are issued by Besagarahalli Branch. The evidence of DW2 is very clear that stop payment was given with details of Cheque even prior to the issuance of Cheque that is on 25.03.2003. The document which have been placed before the Court i.e., Ex.D11, Ex.D12, Ex.D3 and Ex.D1 are clear that cases have been registered before the Registrar of Co-operative Society and document placed by the accused at ‘D’ series substantiate the defence of the accused. It is the specific case of DW1 that Cheque was misused and defence was set up in the early point of time itself. The defence is consistent and stop payment was also given prior to the Cheque. The defence was substantiated by summoning the witnesses before the Trial Court and the Trial Court rightly accepted the defence of the accused and hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perusal of the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra by the counsel for the appellant, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in accepting the defence of the accused and whether it requires interference of this Court? 2. What order? Point No.1: 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that it is the case of the complainant that the accused had approached the complainant from the month of January to March 2003 and requested for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- assuring to repay the same within a month as he is awaiting clearance of bill being passed by the Government for contract work and issued the Cheque dated 09.05.2003. It is also the case of the complainant that the subject matter of the Cheque was presented twice but the same was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ on both the occasions. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint. The complainant in support of his case, he examined himself as PW1 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. The case of the complainant is that notice issued through UCP was served. 13. On the other hand, it is the contention of the accused that there was no such transaction and Cheque was issued in favour of Rajamma since she was running a chit business and two cheques were issued in her favour and two pronotes and sale deed was executed when accused was due in terms of Ex.D1 and the said sale deed was executed by the wife of the accused. It is also the contention of the accused that stop payment letter was given to the bank in the year 2003 itself in terms of Ex.D2 and the complaint was given to the police as per Ex.D3 and acknowledgment was issued at Ex.D4 and copy of the complaint given to the Deputy Registrar of Society is marked at Ex.D6 and statement of witnesses were recorded in terms of Exs.D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11 and copy of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Mandya at Ex.D12 and copy of FIR at Ex.D13 and certified copy of the marriage card is produced at Ex.D14 to establish that the complainant’s son married the daughter of Rajamma and Kempegowda and bank account statement also placed on record as per Ex.D15. 14. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it discloses that from the mouth of PW1 it is elicited that he gave the money to the accused by way of cash and he was having money to construct his building and he was having a site very next to his house. 14. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it discloses that from the mouth of PW1 it is elicited that he gave the money to the accused by way of cash and he was having money to construct his building and he was having a site very next to his house. But he says that he gave the money of 100 and 50 denominations in total four bundles and he reiterated voluntarily that he gave four bundles and he gave the Cheque mentioning the amount and he gave only one Cheque and the accused himself has mentioned the date as 10.05.2003 and he admits that endorsement was issued by Vishveshwara Grameena Bank, Maralaga and the same was sent to his bank and he admits that Ex.P4 was given by Besagarahalli bank. It is suggested that stop payment was given on 25.03.2003 itself and same was denied stating that he was not aware of the same. He admits that there was a differences between Kempegowda and the complainant in connection with dowry case and given the complaint in the year 2005 and the same was withdrawn in the year 2006. He also admits that marriage of the complainant’s son and daughter of Kempegowda was registered prior to the marriage. The defence theory was suggested to PW1 that only one Cheque was returned and another Cheque was not returned and made use of the same for filing of this complaint and same was denied. 15. The other witness is PW2 who speaks about having witnessed for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused gave the Cheque. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not count the amount whether it was Rs.3,00,000/- and except the Cheque, no other document was obtained at the time of transaction and he admits that he is a tenant of the complainant. 16. The accused also examined himself as DW1 and he reiterated the defence in his affidavit and he was also subjected to cross-examination and he also relies upon the documents which have been placed before the Court. He admits that he came to know about the dishonour of Cheque after the issuance of notice to him through his counsel. He admits his signature and also Cheque belongs to him. He admits that he gave the complaint on 15.09.2003 to the Deputy Registrar. He admits correction of date in the complaint in Ex.D6. He admits that he came to know about the dishonour of Cheque after the issuance of notice to him through his counsel. He admits his signature and also Cheque belongs to him. He admits that he gave the complaint on 15.09.2003 to the Deputy Registrar. He admits correction of date in the complaint in Ex.D6. He admits that after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P7, he gave the complaint on 15.09.2003 in terms of Ex.D6. He admits that in Ex.D2, he has mentioned that the Cheque was given to the complainant to file the case and teach a lesson to him. He also admits that when the letter was given in terms of Ex.D2, the marriage of the complainant’s son and also the daughter of Rajamma and Kempegowda was not performed. He also admits that he did not attend the marriage of Gnyana Murthy and Poornima which was held on 15.10.2003 but admits that the marriage of Gnyana Murthy and Poornima is a love marriage and the same was happened prior to that. It is suggested that Ex.D2 was created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied. It is suggested that Ex.D5 was created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied. He admits that after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P7, he has not taken any action. He further admits that on 15.05.2003, he was not having the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. He admits that after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P7, he did not make any payment but he says that he was not having any liability hence, he has not paid any amount. He also admits that issuance of Ex.P2 in 2000 is towards security of chit transaction, but no document is placed on record in this regard. He admits that he gave the statement before the Deputy Registrar on 22.11.2003 and admits that before giving the statement in terms of Ex.D10, Ex.P7 notice was already served on him. It is suggested that in order to avoid the payment in favour of the complainant after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P7, gave the complaint against Kempegowda and Rajamma and also Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society and the same was denied. 17. It is suggested that in order to avoid the payment in favour of the complainant after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P7, gave the complaint against Kempegowda and Rajamma and also Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society and the same was denied. 17. DW2 is the Bank Manager and in his evidence he deposed that if accused has given the representation as per Ex.D2, they used to put the seal and date and he says that inspite of Ex.D2, giving of endorsement as insufficient fund is not correct and the bank which was in existence at Maddur taluk, Maralaga was shifted in the month of February 2003 to Besagarahalli. This witness was subjected to cross-examination wherein he admits that Ex.P2 belongs to accused and also admits that when the Cheque was presented, not having the sufficient fund and to that effect, they have given the endorsement. He admits that Ex.D2 original was not received by him but his predecessor might have received the same which was signed by C J Chinnaswamy. He admits that in a case of any stop payment, direction was given and they used to give an endorsement referred to drawer. In the present case, they have not given any such endorsement. He admits that in the inward register, if any letter was addressed to the bank, they used to mentioned the same and also they used to put inward number and date in the said register. He also admits that there is no such inward register number and date in Ex.D2 but says that the Branch Manager has signed the same and also he cannot tell inward number and date in Ex.D2. It is suggested that the same was not given to the bank hence, not mentioned the inward number and date and same was denied. He also categorically admits that if any letter was given, they used to put the seal and signature on the copy of the said letter also and no such seal and number was put on Ex.D2 but date was mentioned in Ex.D2. He admits that only there is an initial. He also categorically admits that if any letter was given, they used to put the seal and signature on the copy of the said letter also and no such seal and number was put on Ex.D2 but date was mentioned in Ex.D2. He admits that only there is an initial. He also admits that the initial found in Ex.D2 and also letter which he brought, there is a difference and Xerox copy was marked as Ex.D2(1) and also in Ex.D2, account number is also not mentioned and in Ex.D16 also not been certified and also there is no any reference in Ex.D6 that a ‘stop payment’ was given and there was no difficulty to give an endorsement to refer to drawer and also he does not know the reasons for giving and endorsement as ‘insufficient funds’ and he cannot tell whether said letter was given on 25.03.2003 and no document to that effect and he can produce the inward register if direction was given if it is available. 18. The other witness is DW3 and the said witness has turned hostile. DW4 is the wife of DW3 and she also turned hostile in the cross-examination regarding sale transaction. DW5 speaks that did not return one Cheque by Kempegowda and Rajamma and speaks about the sale deed executed in favour of the mother of the Kempegowda by the wife of accused and speaks that Kempegowda and Rajamma were doing the chit business and accused is one of the member of the said chit transaction. In the cross-examination he admits that he does not know any transaction was taken place between the accused and the complainant and he also does not know in which name Kempegowda and Rajamma were running the chit business. DW7 was the member and President of Maralaga Gram Panchayath and deposed that he knows the accused and he also speaks about the chit transaction. He also says that he does not about the transaction between the complainant and the accused and also does not know why this case has been registered. 19. Having re-assessed the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court mainly relies upon the document at Ex.D2 - stop payment letter in coming to the conclusion that stop payment letter was given prior to the issuance of Cheque. 19. Having re-assessed the material on record, it discloses that the Trial Court mainly relies upon the document at Ex.D2 - stop payment letter in coming to the conclusion that stop payment letter was given prior to the issuance of Cheque. In order to consider that document, the Court has to take note of the evidence of DW2 wherein there are categorical admission from the mouth of DW2 that when any letter was given for stop payment, there will be an entry in the inward register and no such inward register is placed before the Court and also he undertaken to produce the same, if any direction was given if the same is available but not placed the same on record. It is also important to note that if no amount in the account, they used to issue the endorsement as insufficient funds. But in the case on hand, it is clear that an endorsement was given that insufficient funds. It is also important to note that DW2 categorically admitted that when the stop payment direction was given, they used to issue an endorsement as referred to drawer. Further, admits that in the case on hand, no such endorsement was given as referred to drawer. Hence, it is clear that the very document of Ex.D2 is doubtful since if such stop payment was given, they would have issued an endorsement as referred to drawer instead of issuing the endorsement as insufficient funds. It is also important to note that DW2 categorically admitted that if any letters are received, the same will be mentioned in the inward register and also they used to mention the inward number and date and no such inward number and date was mentioned in the document at Ex.D2. Only, he says that it contains the signature of the Bank Manager. But the said Bank Manager was not examined before the Court. He categorically says that in inward register which number and date was mentioned in respect of Ex.D2 is not forthcoming. DW2 also says that seal and number was not put at Ex.D2 and inspite of these answers are elicited from the mouth of DW2, the Trial Court accepted the case of the accused since, the very admission given by DW2 creates the doubt. DW2 also says that seal and number was not put at Ex.D2 and inspite of these answers are elicited from the mouth of DW2, the Trial Court accepted the case of the accused since, the very admission given by DW2 creates the doubt. Apart from that DW2 categorically admits that in Ex.D2, it has not contains the full signature and only initial is found and also even admits that in the copy brought by the Manager and also in the endorsement, initials are different and also Ex.D16 which brought by him also not certified and there was no any objection to certify the same and also categorically admits that in Ex.D16 there is no any reference of giving of stop payment and not to encash the same and also there is no any endorsement in Ex.D16 about dishonouring of Cheque. When these answers are elicited from the mouth of DW2, the document at Ex.D2 ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court. The Trial Court mainly relying upon the document at Ex.D2, acquitted the accused. Having considered these admissions, document of Ex.D2 cannot be relied upon hence, the Trial Court committed an error relying upon the said document. 20. No doubt, the Trial Court also given other reason that the complainant has given the amount in 100 and 50 denominations of four bundles in total Rs.30,000/- not Rs.3,00,000/- and also held that the oral evidence of PW1 cannot be more relied upon when the document of Ex.P2 Cheque was given. But it is the duty cast upon the accused to explain what made him to issue a Cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- with his signature and he is not an innocent and illiterate and no such explanation was given. Only took the specific defence that the Cheque was given in favour of Rajamma and Kempegowda. It is the case of the accused that same was given with reference to the chit fund transaction. DW1 in is cross-examination categorically admits that he was a member of chit fund but no document is placed before the Court and he categorically admits that no document is placed on record to show that he was the member of the chit transaction. It is also important to note that the Trial Court relied upon the other documents of ‘D’ series. It is also important to note that the Trial Court relied upon the other documents of ‘D’ series. It is important to note that Ex.D1 is of the year 2002-03 and there was a sale deed but no dispute with regard to the same since the said document is a registered document. It is also important to note that when the document of sale deed was executed in terms of Ex.D1, there was no any dispute between the accused and Kempegowda and Rajamma. But in the case on hand, there was a reference in the document at Ex.D2 that Rajamma and Kempegowda threatened that they are going to file a case through A C Krishna Murthy who is the complainant in the present case wherein a reference was made the subject matter of Cheque. I have already pointed out that there is no any inward number and date in the said document. Hence, it is clear that the document at Ex.D2 was created for the purpose of this case subsequent to the receipt of notice. 21. It is also important to note that DW1 categorically admits that he has received the notice at Ex.P7. Hence, it is clear that notice issued to the respondent/accused was served and he categorically says that having received the notice only he came to know about the dishonour of Cheque. But in the cross- examination of DW1, he categorically admits that the other proceedings initiated before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society was after the receipt of the notice. It is important to note that DW1 categorically admits that when he gave the Cheque in favour of Kempegowda and Rajamma in terms of Ex.P2 as security, but he is not having any document to show that the said Cheque was given towards security and also categorically admits that for having subscribed the chit, no document is placed before the Court to show that Rajamma and Kempegowda have issued any document in connection with the said chit transaction. He categorically admits that he gave the complaint against Kempegowda and Rajamma on 15.09.2003 and at that time, he had already completed three chits. He categorically admits that date was corrected in Ex.D6 in page No.4 and he cannot tell on what date, he collected Ex.D6 to D14. But voluntarily stated that same was taken subsequent to the order. He categorically admits that he gave the complaint against Kempegowda and Rajamma on 15.09.2003 and at that time, he had already completed three chits. He categorically admits that date was corrected in Ex.D6 in page No.4 and he cannot tell on what date, he collected Ex.D6 to D14. But voluntarily stated that same was taken subsequent to the order. He says that Ex.D1 was issued on 01.06.2007 and he admits that in Ex.D6, there is no seal certifying the same and also he admits that Ex.D12 registration of case number as 36/2004 but he cannot tell the status of the case. He admits that in terms of Ex.D3, he made the complaint against the complainant. He categorically admits that in respect of Ex.P7, when the same was served on him on 04.07.2003 but he did not give any reply. But he gave the complaint to the Deputy Registrar of Society. He admits that Ex.D4 – NCR was obtained on 23.09.2003 subsequent to Ex.P7-notice. He categorically admits that notice was served prior to the Ex.D4 and Ex.D6 was given on 15.09.2003 that is also subsequent to the service of notice of Ex.P7. He admits that the marriage was registered in terms of Ex.D14 on 15.10.2003. But he claims that Ex.D2 was given on 25.03.2003 and also the contents of Ex.D2 was also extracted in the cross-examination of DW1 and this endorsement is very clear that on the date of the letter dated 25.03.2003, the marriage of the complainant’s son and the daughter of Kempegowda and Rajamma was not performed. Hence, the question of reference as co-parents-in-law is very doubtful and before the marriage that too in the month of March, making the reference as co-parents-in-law is doubtful. Apart from that it was a love marriage and marriage was also registered even prior to the marriage and same is evident from the record. It is important to note that even after service of notice at Ex.P7, DW1 categorically admits that he has no taken any action even after the service of notice. When these answered are elicited from the mouth of DW1, the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court while discussing the material on record. It is important to note that even after service of notice at Ex.P7, DW1 categorically admits that he has no taken any action even after the service of notice. When these answered are elicited from the mouth of DW1, the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court while discussing the material on record. Even on 15.01.2003, he was not having the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in his account and categorically admits that after service of notice also, he did not make any payment as demanded in Ex.P7 but he voluntarily stated that he has no liability. He categorically admits that Ex.P2 was given in 2000 towards the chit transaction but he was not having any document in this regard. When these answers are elicited from the mouth of DW1, the Trial Court not considered the same in a proper perspective since, he categorically admits that before making the statement as per Ex.D10, already notice in terms of Ex.P7 was served on DW1. Hence, it is clear that the documents which have been placed on record at ‘D’ series came into existence subsequent to the service of notice which was served in terms of Ex.P7 and the Trial Court fails to take note of all these materials on record and accepted the defence theory of the accused hence, the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. 22. It is important to note that the Cheque is admitted and signature is also admitted and probable defence was not proved and mere examination DW1 and DW2 in respect of defence is concerned and their evidence is not credible and other witnesses are only a formal witnesses with regard to that they are the subscribers of the chit transaction and none of them have placed any record to show that Rajamma and Kempegowda were running a chit business and even more number of persons have subscribed in the chit but no material is placed in this regard but the Trial Court blindly accepted the defence of the accused and comes to an erroneous conclusion and ought to have taken presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Instead of the evidence of complainant is rebutted by placing cogent evidence before the Court, created a story stating that a Cheque was given and stop payment was made even before issuance of Cheque and the same was accepted by the Trial Court without looking into the documentary evidence in a proper perspective and hence, the Trial court committed an error in acquitting the accused. 23. The judgment relied upon by the counsel appellant referred supra in the case of RAJESH JAIN is aptly applicable to the case on hand wherein the Apex Court held that when the complainant remained consistent and signature of accused on Cheque was unchallenged, allowing presumption as to legally enforceable debt to take effect, High Courts erroneously questioned complainant’s lack of evidence to support loan claim instead of focusing on whether accused had successfully discharged his burden to show absence of any debt at time of issuing cheque. In the case on hand also though defence was led and examined number of witnesses, the very evidence of DW1 and DW2 is not credible and created the document of Ex.D2 but the Trial Court relied upon the said document even though, the same has not been proved and author of the document who had received the letter was also not examined and the evidence of DW2 goes against the accused wherein he deposed that there is no inward number or date in the letter which was given to the bank and even Ex.D16 is also not discloses anything about the reference of letter was given to the bank and inward register also not placed before the Court though DW2 admits that he can produce the same before the Court, same was not produced. Inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the complaint and accepting the theory of defence of the accused when the defence was also not credible. Hence, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded in the matter against the material on record. Thus, it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the above point as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the defence theory. Point No.2: 24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.13970/2003 is set aside. Hence, I answer the above point as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the defence theory. Point No.2: 24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2014 passed in C.C.No.13970/2003 is set aside. Consequently, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of two months. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. If the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is deposited, ordered to pay the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- in favour of the appellant and an amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest with the State.