The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the accused's liability beyond reasonable doubt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal (as an aggrieved person) as against the Judgment dated 27.05.2015 in S.T.C.No.147 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court No.2), Erode.

2.The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Erode, while passing the impugned order on 27.05.2015 in S.T.C.No.147 of 2012 (filed by the Appellant/Complainant) at paragraph 17, had, inter alia, observed that '... further, Ex.P.1 - Case Cheque was not to be presumed to be one given in favour of the Appellant/Complainant and also the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not be presumed in his favour based on the circumstance of the case and since the Appellant/Complainant's side had failed to establish through examined witnesses and documents beyond fair reasonable doubt and also the presumption was rebutted by the Respondent/Accused through the cross examination P.W.1 and also by means of evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.4, the Complainant had failed to establish his case beyond fair reasonable doubt and resultantly, found the Respondent not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881' and consequently, acquitted him in terms of Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

3.Challenging the Judgment of Acquittal dated 27.05.2015 in S.T.C.No.147 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Mill (Complainant) primarily takes a plea that the trial Court had failed to take note of a very important fact that all the monetary and procedural requirements envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were complied with and in reality, should have convicted the Respondent/Accused when the case against him was established in accordance with Law.

4.The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Accused had not denied the issuance of subject matter of Ex.P.1-Cheque and when the Respondent/Accused himself had admitted the said document, the logical corollary would be the conviction of the Respondent/Accused by the trial Court. Unfortunately, such a course was not resorted to by the trial Court.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the trial Court had ignored the oral testimonies of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 (including the Exs.P.1 to P.16 especially Exs.P.7 to P.10 and P.13).

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the Respondent/ Accused had failed to substantiate his alleged defence that the subject matter of cheque was given is security and that the Appellant/Complainant had represented that it was misplaced as alleged.

7. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the trial Court had totally misconstrued the Exs.D.1 to D.4 and furthermore, these documents would not in any way advance the alleged defence theory and therefore, the adverse findings rendered against the Appellant/ Complainant are clearly unsustainable in the eye of Law.

8. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant invites the attention of this Court to the fact that the Respondent/Accused had issued a 'Letter of Stop Payment' through Court summons from the concerned Bank especially when the onus was on the side of the Respondent/Accused to displace the statutory presumptions operating against him.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the instant case on hand, there is no substantive evidence on the part of the Respondent/Accused to prove that the cheque was issued towards a security as alleged and in any event, the Exs.D.1 to D.4 were not enough to Discharge/Rebut the presumption under Law.

10. It is the plea of the Appellant that the trial Court had committed a grave error in ignoring the vital admissions on the part of the Respondent/Accused, in the evidence of D.W.2.

11. While rounding up the Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a legal stand that just because in