Facts and Procedural Background:

• Abbas Haji (Appellant), now deceased, represented by his legal heirs in the appeal.
• The complainant, T.N. Channakeshava (Respondent), alleged that the Appellant had borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs and issued a cheque as repayment.
• The Respondent claimed that the Appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs dated 18.11.2000, drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
• Upon dishonour, the Respondent served a legal notice to the Appellant. No reply was received, leading the Respondent to file a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
• The case was initially filed before the Trial Court, where the Appellant’s said that he had not signed the cheque. The cheque was sent for analysis by a handwriting expert who opined that the signatures did not match the appellant's signatures. Based on the Handwriting expert's opinion, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint.
• The Respondent then appealed to the High Court, which reversed the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court held that the Appellant was liable for the offence under Section 138, stating that the handwriting expert’s opinion was not conclusive and the appellant did not testify or provide a verified response to the legal notice.
• The legal heirs of the Appellant, challenging the High Court’s conviction on grounds of innocence, have now brought this appeal before the present court.

Main issue:

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's acquittal of the original appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? (Page 3)