- (1.) The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal, dated 05.05.2003, made in C.C.No.515 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.III, Salem.
(2.) The appellant herein as a complainant filed a complaint against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the respondent herein as a Proprietor of the Concern viz., M/S.Chitra Silk Trading Company, Shevvapet, Salem and he had business transaction with the complainant for the past 10 years. Since the outstanding due was to the tune of Rs.31,68,007/-, the complainant made a request to the respondent/accused to repay the dues. Hence, the respondent/accused issued three cheques, dated 26.05.2001 of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Shevvapet, bearing cheque Nos.369424, 369425 and 369426 (i.e.) Ex.P1 series, which was presented for encashment in the Bank and that has been returned as per Ex.P2 return memo, dated 12.06.2001 and the xerox copy was marked as Ex.P6. Hence, the appellant/complainant issued Ex.P3 statutory notice dated 22.06.2001 and the same has been returned on 26.06.2001 as "left without instruction" under Ex.P4. P.W.2/Rajan/Assistant Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and P.W.5/Baskar Prabhu/Officer of Corporation Bank were deposed that the cheques were received and returned as funds insufficient. The statement of bank accounts and Cheque Register of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank were marked as Ex.P5 and the authorisation letter given by the Corporation Bank was marked as Ex.P7. Since the respondent herein has not repaid the amount, the appellant/complainant has preferred the complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the respondent herein had issued cheques knowingfully well that he is not having sufficient funds in the Bank account. Hence, he is guilty for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3.) The learned trial Judge after following the procedure, framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Judge examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P8 and placed the incriminating evidence before the accused and the accused denied the same.;