JUDGMENT : (RAJESH RAI K., J.) In this appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in CC No.1111/2015, dated 21.04.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’] whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’] 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The abridged facts are that, the complainant and the accused are the family friends. On 24.01.2015, the accused borrowed a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant for his family needs and financial difficulties with the assurance that he would repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum within two months. To discharge the said legal debt, the accused on the same day issued post dated cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- bearing No.960154 dated 24.03.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, Gangavathi Branch. When the complainant presented the said cheque through its banker for encashment, the same returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notice dated 04.04.2015 and the same was served on the accused on 06.04.2015. The accused neither replied the legal notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the trial Court. 4. To prove the case, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and examined one more witness on his behalf as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and marked 18 documents as Exs.D1 to D18. 5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant. 6. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Shivakumar Aparaj for Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, so also learned counsel Sri. Neelendra D Gunde, for the respondent/accused. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the trial Court has grossly erred while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, despite the complainant placing sufficient evidence and documents on record. Neelendra D Gunde, for the respondent/accused. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the trial Court has grossly erred while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, despite the complainant placing sufficient evidence and documents on record. According to him, PW.1 in his evidence has categorically deposed about the advancing loan amount to the accused and the issuance of the cheque by the accused for the said legally enforceable debt. Further, the accused has not disputed the cheque in question and signature on it. In such circumstance, initial presumption favours the complainant; the accused failed to rebut the said presumption by placing cogent evidence. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the trial Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the complainant has totally failed to prove his lending capacity of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused. Further, the accused had put forth probable defence that in the year 2013, he availed a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and at that time, the complainant obtained 7 signed cheques and 10 promissory notes as security. Though the accused repaid the said loan amount, the complainant failed to return the said cheques and promissory notes. Later, he filed this false case against the accused for unlawful gain. He also contended that the complainant filed another case by misusing one more cheque of the complainant through one T. Murali for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and recovery suit was also filed against the accused through one D. Veereshappa for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Moreover, the accused also lodged Police complaint against the complainant before the Gangavathi Police for obtaining cheques and promissory notes as security while advancing loan and charging exorbitant interest. Moreover, the accused also lodged Police complaint against the complainant before the Gangavathi Police for obtaining cheques and promissory notes as security while advancing loan and charging exorbitant interest. On the strength of his complaint, the Police registered FIR against the complainant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2004’] in Crime No.178/2015 dated 04.08.2015. In such circumstance, the defence of the accused is probable one, as he has rebutted the initial presumption arising under the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act. As such, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence available on record, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: “ Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsels, so also evidence available on record. 11. As could be seen from records, issuance of cheque in question (Ex.P1) and signature of the accused on it is not disputed by the accused. The specific defence of the accused is that the cheque in question along with 7 cheques were handed over to the complainant in the year 2013 while obtaining hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- as security. According to the accused, he repaid the said loan amount to the complainant, but the complainant failed to return the said cheques. Subsequently, the complainant misused the cheque in question for unlawful gain and filed this false complaint. On a careful perusal of the cross-examination of complainant-PW1, he admitted in his cross-examination, he is having 3 acres and 3 guntas of agricultural land. He also admitted that, except the agricultural income, he has no other source of income. Further, he admitted that Gangavathi Police have filed a criminal case against him for charging exorbitant interest to the hand loan obtained by the accused. The said complaint lodged by the accused and FIR are marked as Exs.D2 and D3. He also admitted that, except the agricultural income, he has no other source of income. Further, he admitted that Gangavathi Police have filed a criminal case against him for charging exorbitant interest to the hand loan obtained by the accused. The said complaint lodged by the accused and FIR are marked as Exs.D2 and D3. In the evidence of DW.1 i.e., accused, he has stated that one more cheque belongs to him which was obtained by the complaint from him as a security while obtaining hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 2013 was presented through one T. Murali for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and a recovery suit was also filed against him by one D. Veereshappa in O.S. No.29/2016 for recovery of Rs.4,56,000/-. Further, PW.2 who examined on behalf of the complainant also stated in his evidence that he is the brother of complainant and their ancestral properties were partitioned among them and the complainant has got share of 3 acres and 3 guntas of land, wherein the complainant is cultivating paddy crop. PW.2 further stated that except the agricultural income, the complainant has no other source of income. In such circumstance, the complainant failed to prove the lending capacity of Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused. 12. Per contra, the accused produced document at Ex.D3-complaint lodged by him against the complainant before the Gangavathi Police, wherein it is alleged that the complainant indulged in lending loan and he used to charge exorbitant interest and also in the year 2013, at the time of obtaining hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, the complainant had obtained 7 signed cheques of the accused along with 10 promissory notes. Based on the said complaint, the Police also registered FIR in Crime No.178/2015 for the aforementioned offences. 13. On perusal of Ex.D6-complaint lodged by one T. Murali against the accused, the same depicts that on 10.08.2015, the accused had availed hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from him i.e., after lapse of 7 months from the date of obtaining hand loan from the present complainant. Ex.D12-plaint in O.S.No.29/2016 discloses that the accused had obtained hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from one D. Veereshappa on 10.06.2015. The defence taken by the accused in this case is reiterated in the written statement filed in O.S. No.29/2016. Ex.D12-plaint in O.S.No.29/2016 discloses that the accused had obtained hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from one D. Veereshappa on 10.06.2015. The defence taken by the accused in this case is reiterated in the written statement filed in O.S. No.29/2016. As could be gathered from this evidence that within a span of 6 months, the accused must have obtained huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from 3 different persons. The purpose of loan obtained by the accused is stated by the complainant that it is only for agricultural activities. In such circumstance, it cannot be believed the accused borrowed Rs.8,00,000 from the complaint for the said purpose apart from borrowing 8,00,000/- from one T. Murali and Rs.4,00,000/- from Veereshappa. In such circumstance, a doubt in the alleged transaction and legally enforceable debt by the accused to the complainant. In that view of the matter, in my considered view, the accused has rebutted initial presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act by placing probable defence. This aspect of the matter has rightly and elaborately discussed by the trial Court. 14. Nonetheless, this being the appeal against acquittal, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that, if the trial Court has taken a plausible view, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in the acquittal judgment. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the “affirmative” and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.10 0227/2017 stands dismissed.