JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This is an appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C . filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 08/01/2007 in Crl.A. No.31/2001 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery, aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C . of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act). 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The appellant/complainant is a finance Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent/accused owed an amount Rs.67,212/-, which is the balance amount in two chit payments made by the Company, that is, in GL.37/7 - Rs.8,357/- and GL.67/7 - Rs.58,855/-. Though the appellant/complainant approached the respondent/accused several times to clear the amount, the respondent/accused failed to do so. Finally on 01/07/1995, the respondent/accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 04/07/1995 drawn on the Canara Bank, Kannur Main Branch, for the amount due to the appellant/complainant. When the cheque was issued, the appellant/complainant was made to believe that the respondent/accused would make necessary arrangements to honour the cheque. However, when the cheque was presented by the appellant/complainant before the Nedungadi Bank Ltd, Kannur Branch, for collection on 04/07/1995, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent/accused. The appellant/complainant was informed of the dishonour by the bank on 04/07/1995. Pursuant to the same, the appellant/complainant caused to issue Ext.P3 lawyer notice dated 13/07/1995 calling upon the respondent/accused to pay the entire cheque amount within a period of 15 days of receipt of the notice. Though the notice was received by the respondent/accused on 19/07/1995 which is evidenced by Ext.P5 acknowledgment card, the respondent/accused has neither replied nor cleared the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint. 3. Before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10(a) were marked on his side. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked on the side of the accused. 4. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by judgment dated 04/01/2001, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and was directed to pay compensation of Rs.67,212/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C . Aggrieved, the accused filed Crl.A. No.31/2001 before the Court of Session, Thalassery. The appellate court by the impugned judgment dated 08/01/2007 reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C . Aggrieved, the complainant has come up in appeal. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the finding of acquittal of the accused by the appellate court requires any interference by this Court. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the fact that Ext.P1 cheque was issued from the account of the respondent/accused and the signature in Ext.P1 is admitted. Therefore, the issuance and execution of the cheque is proved. When the issuance and execution is proved, the presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act are attracted. The presumptions have not been rebutted by the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused admits that he had subscribed to two chits, that is, GL.37/7 and GL.67/7. After subscribing the chitties, he had auctioned the two chitties and received the bid amount. When the amounts were received, necessary entries were made in the passbooks that were issued to the accused. The accused disputes only with regard to the payment in GL.67/7. The accused has produced the passbook of GL.37/7, but has not produced the passbook of GL.67/7. If the accused had not received the bid amount in GL.67/7, he could have produced his passbook to substantiate the same. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that when issuance and execution of the cheque is proved, production of no further document(s) is necessary as the presumptions available under the NI Act would be attracted. The trial court had rightly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and had convicted him accordingly. However, the appellate court on a misappreciation of the evidence and the law on the point, wrongly interfered with the judgment of the trial court, reversed it and acquitted the accused. Hence, the appellate judgment is liable to be reversed, goes the argument. 7.1 Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that PW1, who was examined on behalf of the appellant/complainant, is only a power of attorney holder who has no direct knowledge about the transaction. Hence, the appellate judgment is liable to be reversed, goes the argument. 7.1 Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that PW1, who was examined on behalf of the appellant/complainant, is only a power of attorney holder who has no direct knowledge about the transaction. The respondent/accused had specifically contended that he had not auctioned chitty no.GL.67/7 or received the bid amount. Therefore, it was the burden on the appellant/complainant to prove that the respondent/accused had bid in the auction and received the amount. However, the appellant/complainant has not discharged the burden and hence the presumptions under the Act are not attracted. As the presumptions are not attracted, the respondent/accused has no duty to rebut the same. The appellate court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court and the same suffers from no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court, goes the argument. 8. The fact that the respondent/accused had subscribed to two chittes is admitted. It is also admitted that chitty no.GL.37/7 was auctioned and that he had received the bid amount. The dispute is with regard to chitty no.GL.67/7. According to the appellant/complainant, an amount of Rs.67,212/- was due from the respondent/accused towards the two chitties and hence in discharge of the same, Ext.P1 cheque had been issued. PW1 is the power of attorney holder of the appellant/complainant. It is true that there is no bar in appellant/complainant examining the power of attorney holder on his behalf to establish his case. But the power of attorney holder must have direct or personal knowledge of the transaction attempted to be established. Here the testimony of PW1 would show that he has no direct knowledge about the transaction. PW1 when examined admitted that he has only hearsay knowledge about the incident as it was the cashier who told him that Ext.P1 cheque had been issued by the respondent/accused herein. The said cashier has not been examined for which no reason(s) have been furnished by the appellant/complainant. 9. Further, PW1 in the chief examination deposed that the amount due in chitty no.GL.67/7 was paid as per an account payee cheque. However, the same has not been produced before the court. The said cashier has not been examined for which no reason(s) have been furnished by the appellant/complainant. 9. Further, PW1 in the chief examination deposed that the amount due in chitty no.GL.67/7 was paid as per an account payee cheque. However, the same has not been produced before the court. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that production of documents apart from the cheque is unnecessary in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act as the presumptions under the Act are attracted. However, presumptions are available only when the appellant/complainant discharges his primary burden of proving the debt or liability that the accused owes to him. Here the accused denies receipt of the bid amount in chitty no.GL.67/7. Ext.P3 lawyer notice issued by the appellant/complainant reads thus: “My client says that you have issued a cheque bearing No. 920964 dt: 4.7.95 drawn to the Canara Bank, Kannur Main Branch for an amount of Rs.67,212/- (Rupees Sixty seven thousand two hundred and twelve only) which you are indebted to the payee. My client says that he presented the cheque before the Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Kannur Branch on 4.7.95 for collection on your undertaking that the cheque will be honoured. But the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee due to funds insufficient in your account to honour the same. Nedungadi Bank informed my client about the dishonour by a memo dt; 4.7.95. Therefore I hereby called upon you to pay a sum of Rs.67,212/- (Rupees Sixty seven thousand two hundred and twelve only) along with Rs.100/- the cost of this notice within 15 days of receipt of this notice, failing which my client will be constrained to proceed against you through proper count of Law which will be in your own costs and risks.” Ext.D4, the reply notice given by the respondent/accused reads thus: “My client says that the amount covered by the cheque is not an amount due from my client and is not a legally enforceable debt. My client was a subscriber of the chitty conducted by your client and my client was a successful bidder. As security for the payment of future subscriptions, the then Manager of the Co. obtained the blank cheque signed by my client. After the issuance of the cheque as well as after the date of the cheque, payments were made to the Co. by my client. As security for the payment of future subscriptions, the then Manager of the Co. obtained the blank cheque signed by my client. After the issuance of the cheque as well as after the date of the cheque, payments were made to the Co. by my client. Two daily chit pass books which has to be kept with my client, were taken from my client by the representative of the Co., by making a representation that it had to be countersigned by the Manager. The Daily chit pass books taken from my client may be returned to my client along with the copy of the records of payments made by my client. Now my client understands that he is cheated by the Co. My client is ready and willing to pay the balance amount legally due. The claim made in the notice is false and untenable. If the intention of your client is to proceed against my client under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments, (Amendment ) Act by making unwarranted and illegal claims the entire responsibility is on your client for the costs and consequences thereof.” 10. It is true that the respondent/accused has not specifically stated in his reply notice that he had not auctioned chitty no.GL.67/7 or received the bid amount. However, Ext.P3 notice also does not say that the amount referred to in the notice is the amount due from the respondent/accused relating to the aforesaid two chitties. Hence, the respondent/accused cannot be found fault with for not specifying the same. Moreover, it is the duty of the appellant/complainant to prove the debt when it is disputed by the respondent/accused. It is only when the primary burden is discharged, the burden would shift to the respondent/accused. The accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. He only needs to show a preponderance of probabilities in his favour. His case when examined as DW1 and in his reply notice is that he does not owe the amount claimed by the appellant/complainant. The argument that the testimony of PW1 that the amount from chitty no.GL.67/7 had been paid by way of an account payee cheque to the accused was never disputed is incorrect. In the cross- examination, this is seen challenged and denied. The accused when examined himself as DW1 also asserted that he had not received the amount as stated in the complaint. In the cross- examination, this is seen challenged and denied. The accused when examined himself as DW1 also asserted that he had not received the amount as stated in the complaint. In such circumstances, the appellant/complainant could very well have produced materials in his possession to show that the respondent/accused had in fact bid or priced the chitty and had received the bid amount. However, for reasons best known to the appellant/complainant, the same has not been done. That being the position, I find no infirmity in the findings of the appellate court calling for an interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.