The burden of proof lies with the Appellant/Complainant to establish the guilt of the Respondent/Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage is subject to strict scrutiny.

1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant as against the Judgment dated 14.9.2011 in C.C.Nos.2301, 2302 and 2304 of 2001 passed by the Learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgments in C.C.Nos.2301, 2302 and 2304 of 2001, on 14.09.2011, had clearly held that the Appellant/Complainant had miserably failed to prove his cases against the Respondent/Accused and ultimately found him not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Appellant's Contentions:

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant, the trial Court had committed an error, in acquitting the accused in three Calender Cases, by not appreciating the material evidences projected by the Appellant/ Complainant.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the Respondent/Accused impliedly accepting the money transaction between him and the Appellant/Complainant and further, he issued 3 cheques viz., 1.Cheque No.564482 dated 20.07.2000, 2.Cheque No.564483 dated 16.08.2000 and 3.Cheque No.564484 dated 31.08.2000, (each cheque for Rs.50,000/-), totalling in all for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn from Indian Bank, Washermenpet Branch.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant takes a stand that the trial Court should have taken note of the fact that the Appellant/Complainant presented three cheques in question in his Bank Account i.e. Canara Bank, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai – 12 on 20.12.2000 and the said cheques were returned with an endorsement of 'insufficient of funds' in the Bank Account maintained by the Respondent/ Accused.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant contends that due to oversight some mistakes had crept in before the trial Court in regard to the marking of three cheques and the three cases were tried simultaneously and because of the mistakes committed by the Appellant/Complainant, the Respondent/Accused could not take advantage of the same and escape from his liability.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant/Complainant filed C.M.P.Nos.100 to 102 of 2006 for recalling of P.W.1 and the trial Court was pleased to allow the recall petition on 23.02.2007 by granting a limited relief of permitting the examination of P.W.1.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant submits that the Respondent/Accused issued three cheques in question in respect of legally enforceable debts and the signature found in the instrument was that of the Respondent/Accused who issued the cheque.

Respondent's Submissions:

9. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/Accused submits that the Appellant/Complainant, before the trial Court, in the three calender Cases in question, had not established his cases, by means of an oral or documentary evidence to the effect that the Respondent/Accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the trial Court had clearly observed, in the impugned Judgments, that marking of documents by the Appellant/ Complainant in a haphazard manner could not be considered to be a mere mistake and finally, it rejected the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent/Accused to remark the documents.

10. In effect, the stand of the Respondent/Accused is that it is not open to the Appellant/Complainant to fill up the gaps at the appellate stage.

Narration of Evidence:

11. At this stage, this Court, for fuller and better appreciation of the three Calender Cases in C.C.Nos.2301, 2302 and 2304 of 2001 in question, refers to the evidence of Appellant /Complainant as P.W.1 as under:

(i) P.W.1 (Appellant/Complainant), in his evidence, in C.C.No.2301 of 2001, before the trial Court, had deposed that the Respondent/Accused for the purpose