1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 04.10.2004, made in C.C.No.114 of 2004, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirunelveli.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Appeal are as follows:

2.1. The appellant is the private complainant and he had filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirunelveli, which was taken on file in C.C.No.114 of 2004.

2.2. The appellant herein is M/s.Soorya Weaves, a partnership firm, represented by its one of the partners viz., S.S.Thiyagarajan. The appellant/private complainant, his wife and his three sons are the partners of the said firm. The appellant, his two sons and one of the daughter-in-laws are also the partners of the firm, namely M/s.Sun Apparels, which is also situated in the same premises as a sister concern. Both the firms are doing textile business. The accused has purchased textiles from M/s.Sun Apparels on 09.09.2003 and 22.09.2003 for a sum of Rs.2,81,797/- and Rs.1,94,525/- respectively and the accused issued two cheques dated 24.09.2003 and 29.09.2003 drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Udumalapet in favour of the Firm 'M/s.Soorya Weaves', which, on presentation, were returned on 12.11.2003, with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. On 17.11.2003, a statutory notice was sent to the accused, for which, he sent a reply on 07.12.2003. Since the accused has not repaid the amount, the private complainant has filed the above said private complaint.

2.3. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirunelveli, on taking up the case on file, issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, he was furnished with a copy of the complaint and questioned him and he pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and prayed for trial of the case.

2.4. To substantiate the case, the private complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and as many as 14 documents were produced.

2.5. The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.

2.6. On behalf of the accused, the Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Meenakshipuram, Tirunelveli Junction was examined as D.W.1 and the accused himself was examined as D.W.2. No document was marked on his side.

2.7. The defence taken by the accused was that there is no transaction between the accused and the private complainant and, therefore, the private complainant cannot prosecute for the cheques alleged to have issued to another partnership firm viz., M/s.Sun Apparels.

2.8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after elaborate discussions and on the basis of the settled principles of various judgments, found that the private complainant had admitted that the liability was only towards 'M/s.Sun Apparels' and not towards 'M/s.Soorya Weaves' and there is no business transaction between the private complainant and the accused and, therefore, it is not a legally enforceable debt and having found that the private complainant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, dismissed the complaint and, thereby, acquitting the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the private complainant has preferred this appeal.

3. The Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

4. It is an admitted case that the private complainant M/s.Soorya Weaves and one M/s.Sun Apparels are sister concerns, doing same business viz., textile. It is also admitted that the accused was having business dealing with M/s.Sun Apparels. It is also admitted that the dishonoured cheques are issued by the accused. The point urged is that the accused had issued two cheques, Exs.P.6 and P.7 i