The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint against respondent No.1 herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After holding a trial, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla found the respondent No.1 guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. The Magistrate also directed the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/-, which was the amount of the cheque, as compensation to the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the respondent No.1 moved the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal. This appeal was allowed by the Court of Sessions by recording an order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, in the view that I am taking and in view of the final order that I intend to pass, it is neither necessary nor proper to have an elaborate discussion of the rival contentions as raised before me. It is sufficient to mention only the broad features of the case.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant shall, hereinafter, be referred to as "the complainant" and the respondent No.1 as "the accused".

4. The complaint came to be filed against two persons; the present accused and also his wife Smt.Sangeetha, who was mentioned as accused No.2 in the said complaint. She was, however, acquitted by the learned Magistrate.

5. The case of the complainant was that he had advanced a hand loan in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. This loan was supposed to be a friendly loan given in cash. This was given, some time, in the month of November, 2007. As per the complainant's belief, it was for the purchase of a flat. The complainant's case is that towards repayment of the said loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, the accused had issued a cheque dated 05/11/2008 in the sum of Rs.90,000/-, which was dishonoured.

6. Primarily, two contentions were raised during the trial. The first was that no notice of demand had been served upon the accused and that, there was no evidence to show service of such notice. The other contention was that the cheque had been forcibly obtained from the accused at the intervention of one Mr. Arunachalan, who happens to be a relative of the accused.

7. The case of the accused as suggested by him was that in order to seek recovery of some amount that had been advanced by the complainant to some other person and for the repayment of which the accused was not responsible, the cheque was taken from the accused with the help of said Shri.Arunachalan. The accused, in his evidence, also gave the name of the person for whose supposed liability the accused was made to issue the cheque. The accused had put forth the case that except his signature, the other matter on the cheque was not written by him. The complainant's case, on the contrary, was that the entire handwriting on the cheque was that of accused. This stand was repeated by the parties before this Court also. In spite of the parties having taken such a stand, no finding on that aspect has been given, either by the learned Magistrate, or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who decided the appeal. Unfortunately, none of the parties wanted to take the matter further and were complacent with mere denial of the other's claim.

8. In the peculiar facts of the case, particularly because there is no evidence of the loan transaction, except the cheque itself, which incidentally, does not correspond to the amount of loan taken, it appears necessary to ascertain as to whether the writing on the cheque is that of the accused. Though this would not conclude the question, that would enable the Court to judge the matte