1. The Appellant / Complainant has focussed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court, as against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 02.08.2006 in C.C.No.1273 of 2003, passed by the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.1273 of 2003, dated 02.08.2006 had interalia observed 'that the Appellant / Complainant in his written complaint, argument, evidence and in notice had stated that the Respondent / Accused issued a Cheque in his favour based on private money transaction, since it transpires that Ex.P1 Cheque was issued in favour of Partnership Firm of 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' and also that the Appellant / Complainant in para 3 of his complaint had admitted that the Respondent / Accused was the partner in the 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' Partnership Firm and in that case, other partners were not shown as Accused and also that in the aforesaid case, the Appellant / Complainant had not arrayed 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' as first Accused and although presently 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' was not in existence, in regard to this there was no pleading in the complaint by the Appellant and as per Section 141(1) (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Appellant / Complainant had filed the present case only against the Respondent / Accused and as such, the case filed by the Appellant / Complainant is not maintainable and resultantly held that the Appellant / Complainant had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts to the effect that the Respondent / Accused was guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereby granted the benefit of doubt in favour of the Respondent / Accused and consequently, he was found not guilty and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.'

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant, the Judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1273 of 2003 is not only against the probability of the case but the same is also devoid of merits.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Respondent / Accused had not discharged the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant submits that the trial Court had not taken into account of an important fact that the ingredients of the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been attracted clearly in the present case and resultantly committed an error in acquitting the Respondent / Accused.

6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the Respondent / Accused had not led any rebuttal evidence and in such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the Respondent / Accused.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously submits that a Company need not be prosecuted while prosecuting a person in charge of the Company and in this regard he relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sheoratan Agarwal and Anr v State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1824.

8. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a stand that in the instant case, the Respondent / Accused was prosecuted as partner of the Company and indeed he had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to show that he was not a partner in the said Company and viewed in that context the Judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court should have seen that the partners of the firm can be prosecuted without prosecuting the Firm and as such, the 'Judgment of Acquittal' passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the contentio