JUDGMENT : G BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 08.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2019 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the complainant and accused are well known to each other. Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the complainant on 18.12.2015 for the purpose of legal necessities i.e., for discharge of hand loan and to purchase the Toyota DCM vehicle. The accused had agreed to repay the loan amount within two months. After lapse of two months, complainant demanded for the repayment of the loan amount, but the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.074500 dated 20.02.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of the complainant. As per the instruction of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his collective bank i.e., Vijaya Bank, Koppa Branch. The said cheque was returned on 01.03.2016 with endorsement "insufficient funds". Then the complainant contacted the accused and informed the matter. But the accused had not responded properly. Complainant had issued a legal notice to the accused on 11.03.2016 through RPAD. The notice was served on accused on 20.03.2016. The accused had neither replied to the notice nor paid the loan amount. Hence, the complainant/appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. After filing the complaint, case was registered in PCR.No.276/2016. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC.No.1053/2016. Summons was issued to the accused. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, one witness was examined as PW1, 5 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On closure of complainant side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of PW1 and he has adduced the evidence of DW1. No documents produced on behalf of the accused. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,95,000/-. Accused has totally denied the evidence of PW1 and he has adduced the evidence of DW1. No documents produced on behalf of the accused. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,95,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the complainant/appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.30/2019 before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya. The appeal came to be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside. Accused was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Appellate Court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court has ignored the provision of Section 139 of NI Act. The respondent has taken the main defence that, the appellant has no financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent. On 18.12.2015, the respondent had taken this defence during the cross- examination of PW1. PW1 has stated as to his annual income from agricultural land, from coolie work, sale proceeds from immovable property, occupation of his son, etc. Further he has stated that there is no difficulty to produce the documents for having sold his properties. However, when there was no necessity for producing any documentary evidence to prove his financial capacity and also no order of the court to that effect, mere denial of the respondent that appellant had no financial capacity cannot be accepted. The respondent has not produced any probable defence to shift the burden on the appellant except the self-serving statement to say that he had no financial capacity to lend such amount. The appellate Court has given much importance to the discrepancy found in the cross-examination of PW1, regarding repayment of loan etc. instead of considering the presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act. Based on evidence of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 produced by him towards the legal liability, the reasons given by the appellate Court in the impugned judgment is not correct to decide that the appellant has failed to prove that he had the financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. Based on evidence of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 produced by him towards the legal liability, the reasons given by the appellate Court in the impugned judgment is not correct to decide that the appellant has failed to prove that he had the financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Hence, it is sought for allowing of this appeal. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR AND ANOTHER in Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010 dated 25.09.2025. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. With regard to financial capacity is concerned, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1. There is a contrary evidence placed by the Complainant in this regard. The accused has rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. On all the grounds, it is sought for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court? (2) What order? My answer to above points are as under: (1) Point No.1 in Negative. (2) As per final order. 9. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant and accused know each other. Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the complainant on 18.12.2015 for the purpose of legal necessities. The accused had agreed to repay the loan amount within two months. After lapse of two months, complainant demanded for the repayment of the loan amount, but the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.074500 dated 20.02.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, V.V.Puram Branch, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in favour of the complainant. As per instruction of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his collective bank i.e., Vijaya Bank, Koppa Branch. As per instruction of the accused, the complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment through his collective bank i.e., Vijaya Bank, Koppa Branch. The said cheque returned on 01.03.2016 with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Then the complainant contacted the accused and informed the matter. But the accused had not responded properly. Complainant had issued a legal notice to accused on 11.03.2016 through RPAD. The notice served on accused on 20.03.2016. The accused had neither replied to the notice nor paid the loan amount. Hence, the complainant/appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. 10. To prove the guilt of the accused, PW1 was examined and he reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also produced Exs.P1 to P5, the original cheque, bank endorsement, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement. On perusal of these materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant has complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of NI Act. It is not in dispute that cheque-Ex.P1 belongs to the accused. It is also not in dispute as to signature of the accused as per Ex.P1(a). Though the legal notice duly served to the accused, he has not sent any reply. However, during the course of evidence of DW1, the accused has stated that he had issued a cheque, "on demand" pronote and one Xerox copy of driving licence to one Harish (who is brother in law of the Complainant) as security. Same were not returned by Harish and he had misused the cheque and initiated the proceedings through this complainant. If really, the accused had issued a cheque to one Harish and same was misused by him, the accused could have taken appropriate legal steps against this complainant and Harish. But the accused has not taken any legal steps against them. The first appellate Court has observed that there is no cogent material before the Court about the financial capacity of the complainant to lend the amount in dispute. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 706. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the complainant is required to prove the source of funds unless the accused specifically disputes his financial capacity with substantive evidence. 11. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the complainant is required to prove the source of funds unless the accused specifically disputes his financial capacity with substantive evidence. 11. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 22 of SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR AND ANOTHER in Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010 dated 25.09.2025, it is observed as under: "It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, the Respondent No.1-Accused has filed no documents and/or examined any independent witness or led any evidence with regard to the financial incapacity of the Appellant-Complainant to advance the loans in question. For instance, this Court in Rajaram S/o Sriramulu Naidu (Since Deceased) Through LRs. vs. Maruthachalam (Since Deceased) Through LRs., (2023) 16 SCC 125 has held that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by the accused examining the Income Tax Officer and bank officials of the complainant/drawee." 12. In the case on hand, as already stated above the accused has not sent any reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant. Even in evidence of DW1, the accused has not whispered anything as to the financial capacity of the complainant. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SANJABIJ TARI (supra), the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, can be rebutted by the accused by examining the Income Tax Officer and Bank Officials of the Complainant/Drawee. In the case on hand, accused has not adduced any evidence of the Income tax officer or bank officials. 13. It is also relevant to mention here as to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 21 of the SANJABIJ TARI (supra). Same reads as under: "This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that some District Courts and some High Courts are not giving effect to the presumptions incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and are treating the proceedings under the NI Act as another civil recovery proceedings and are directing the complainant to prove the antecedent debt or liability." 14. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable under law. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable under law. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in negative. Regarding Point No.2: 15. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed (ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 08.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2019 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set aside. (iii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 11.01.2019 passed in CC.No.1053/2016 by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, is confirmed. (iv) Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment along with trial Court records to concerned courts.