1. The Appellant/Complainant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of acquittal, made in C.C. No. 3271 of 2011, dated 06.04.2013, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. III, Saidapet, Chennai/Trial Court.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, in C.C. No. 3271 of 2011, on 06.04.2013, had clearly came to the conclusion that Ex.P.3, legal notice was not served on the Accused (Respondent), and that was established through Ex.P.4, postal department's letter. That apart, it was observed by the trial Court that Ex.P.1, cheque, was not issued by the Accused (Respondent) in respect of the Bank Account that was established through the evidence of D.W.1, Ex.P.1, and Exs.D.1 and D.2. Ultimately, the trial Court had opined that the stand of the Appellant/Complainant that the cheque was signed by the Respondent/Accused and handed-over to him was a doubtful one. Finally, it was observed that the cheque in respect of the 'Bank Account' was in no way connected with the Respondent/Accused and therefore, the case filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter, referred to as "N.I. Act'') was not maintainable, and dismissed the case by acquitting the Accused under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, dated 06.04.2013, in C.C. No. 3271 of 2011, passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal, basically contending that the trial Court had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that notice was not served on the Accused, and the said Bank Account was not that of the Accused.

4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant urges before this Court that the trial Court should have convicted the Respondent/Accused, instead of acquitting him, and in fact, on the side of the Respondent/Accused, no witness was examined to substantiate the case of the Defence, which aspect was not taken note of by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.

5. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant proceed to take a stand that the case of the Appellant/Complainant was that the Respondent/Accused had received a loan for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the Appellant/Complainant, on 19.03.2010, and that the Respondent/Accused issued a cheque for the principal amount drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank.

6. Continuing further, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that, when the cheque was deposited for encashment, through his Bankers, the same got returned unpaid for the reason 'Insufficient Funds'. In fact, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant brings in to the notice of this Court that the Demand Notice, dated 31.03.2010, sent by the Appellant/Complainant was received by the Respondent/Accused on 13.04.2010, and no reply was issued to the said notice by the Respondent/Accused. As such, the criminal complaint was filed against the Respondent/Accused, when there was failure to pay the amount in question.

7. Although notice was served on the Respondent/Accused, no one has appeared on his behalf, either in person or through counsel at the time of hearing of the main Appeal.

8. At this stage, this Court pertinently points that the Appellant/Complainant, in his complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., in respect of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, had categorically averred that the Accused (Respondent) availed a hand loan of Rs.1,25,000/- only for his urgent business needs and executed a promissory note in his favour on the same day, promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on demand.

9. It is the further case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Respondent/Accused, after availing the aforesaid loan amount, had not paid the monthly interest towards the principal, and only after repeated demands and requests made by the Appellant/ Complainant in this regard, the Respondent/Accused issued a cheque i