1. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.182 of 2006 dated 02.07.2009 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.

2. The trial Court while passing the impugned judgment in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on 02.07.2009 had inter alia observed that '. . . the Appellant/Complainant's complaint was barred by limitation, the complaint was not filled fulfilling the requirements of Section 141, the charge in respect of R1/A1, R2/A2 and R3/A4, on the basis of Appellant/Complainant's witnesses and documents were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused not guilty under Section 138 (4) r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and acquitted them under Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the 3rd Accused had expired, the trial Court held that the charge against him stood abated.'

3. The summary of complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant:

The case of the Appellant/Complainant is that the 1st Respondent/A1 is a Partnership firm doing civil contract works. The Accused 2 to 4 are its partners and responsible for the day to day affairs of the 1st Respondent/A1 firm. The 2nd Respondent /A2 and one S.C.Palanisamy are the partners and authorised signatories of 1st Respondent/A1 firm. On 22.09.2005, the said S.C.Palanisamy on behalf of 1st Respondent/A1 with the knowledge of A2 to A4 borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs & Fifty Thousand only) from the Complainant for their urgent business needs and in order to discharge the 1st Respondent/A1 firm's liabilities, the said S.C.Planisamy on behalf of the 1st Respondent/A1 firm with the knowledge of A2 to A4 issued a post dated cheque on 20.03.2006 bearing No.655844 for Rs.3,50,000/-drawn on State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Erode to the Complainant. The said S.C.Palanisamy died on 22.10.2005 and after his death, the 2nd Respondent/A2 look after the day to day affairs of 1st Respondent/A1 firm with the knowledge of the 3rd Accused (C.Deivasigamani) and the 3rd Respondent/A4. Now, the Accused 2 to 4 are looking after the day to day affairs of the 1st Respondent /A1 firm.

4. The Appellant/Complainant, on 09.09.2006, presented the cheque for encashment through State Bank of India, Kodumudi branch. To the shock and surprise, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured for the reason of 'Funds Insufficient' in the 1st Respondent/A1's Firm Bank Account. The Appellant/Complainant's bank returned the cheque through registered post and the same was received on 19.09.2006 together with return memo dated 11.09.2006 to him.

5. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant caused a legal notice dated 28.09.2006 to A1 to A4 calling upon them to repay the said cheque amount of Rs.3,50,000/-within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The 1st Respondent/A1's Firm and the 2nd Respondent/A2 acknowledged the said notice on 30.09.2006 and 3rd Respondent/A4 acknowledged the said notice on 03.10.2006 and the acknowledgment cards were received by the Appellant/Complainant's counsel on 04.10.2006. The 3rd Accused evaded the notice and the notice got returned on 10.10.2006 with an endorsement 'intimated and not claimed'. The 1st Respondent/A1, the 2nd Respondent/A2 and the 3rd Respondent/A4 sent a reply to the Appellant/Complainant's counsel with false allegations. The Accused No. 1 to 4 failed to repay the said cheque amount to the Appellant/Complainant.

6. The 1st Respondent/A1 firm without having sufficient funds in its account, S.C.Palanisamy on behalf of the 1st Respondent/A1 firm with the knowledge of A2 to A4 issued the cheque in question with dishonest intention knowing fully well that it would not be honoured on the date of its presentation and thereby cheated the Appellant/Complainant. As such, A1 to A4 deemed to have committed the offence under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal C