- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.2966/2016.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.

(2.)Appellant herein filed a complaint against respondent/accused under section 200 Cr.P.C. read with section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act"), contending that complainant and accused were known to each other and they were good friends and accused borrowed hand- loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant on 20.09.2015 and executed on-demand promissory note and consideration receipt on the same day and in repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque bearing No.000110 dated 10.12.2015 drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Chittoor, for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonoured as "payment stopped by the drawer".
(ii) Before the Trial Court, appellant/complainant examined himself as PW.1 and produced in evidence, original cheque at Ex.P1, copy of Cheque Return Memo - Ex.P2, legal notice -Ex.P3, courier receipt - Ex.P4, postal acknowledgement - Ex.P5, reply notice Ex.P6 and promissory note - Ex.P7.

(iii) In rebuttal, respondent/accused examined himself as DW.1 and relied on copy of FIR - Ex.D1, copy of the complaint - Ex.D2 and notice (Ex.D3) issued by him to one Smt.K.Meenakshi, Sri.K.Kodanda Naidu and Sri.S.Gunasekhar dated 14.12.2015 and copy of the reply notice dated 27.01.2016

(iv) Considering the above material, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the transaction at Ex.P7 and further, complainant failed to prove that accused had issued the aforesaid cheque in discharge of the legal liability and consequently, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.

(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contends that the complainant has proved his case by producing the original cheque. Cheque is attached with a presumption. Circumstances under which cheque was issued by the respondent has been deposed on oath. The said evidence has not been discredited in the cross-examination. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. Under the said circumstances, learned Magistrate has committed serious error in dismissing the complaint.