Preamble:

The Appellant/Respondent (Complainant) has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 08.11.2013 in C.A.No.1 of 2013 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

2. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.A.No.1 of 2013, on 08.11.2013, at paragraph 11, had, among other things, observed to the effect that '... P.W.1 had deposed in his cross examination (before the trial Court) that he had not filed the Contract Note and that he does not know ordinarily when shares were purchased, the account details were to be submitted to the Company Law Board and further that, the Respondent/Accused is a client of the Appellant Company and it was correct to state that in three cheques, the Respondent/Accused signature was found in black ink'.

3. Further, the First Appellate Court had proceeded to observe in the Judgment that P.W.1 had stated that it was correct to state that in three cheques apart from the signature, the amount details mentioned in the cheques were different ones and in the cheque dated 17.01.2008, his company's name was written and in other two cheques, their company's seal was affixed and the said three cheques were given by the Respondent/Accused at the same time and on the same date, the three cheques were presented for collection by their company.

4. Besides the above, the First Appellate Court in its Judgment, at paragraph 11, had proceeded to observe that it was evident that the present case was filed by the Appellant/Complainant by using the blank signed Cheques - Ex.P5 to P7, after filling up the same (by the Accused). Apart from that, the First Appellate Court had stated in the Judgment that the HDFC Bank Manager was not examined to show that the Respondent/Accused had no sufficient money in his account on 23.01.2008 and also that, the Account List of the Respondent/ Accused was not filed by the Appellant and also that since it was not mentioned whether Ex.P5 to P7 - Cheques were given to the Appellant/Company or the Cheque was given for the loan taken from the Appellant/Company and the reasons were not established through an oral and documentary evidence to show that the Respondent/ Accused had issued three cheques and cheated the Appellant/ Company, ultimately found the Respondent/Accused not guilty and allowed the Appeal.

5. Earlier, the trial Court, in its Judgment in S.T.C.No.823 of 2010 dated 27.12.2012, had, inter alia, observed that for the 'Legally Enforceable Debt' as seen under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Respondent/Accused had issued Ex.P5 to P7 - Cheques and when they were deposited in the bank account, the said cheques were dishonoured owing to insufficient funds and when a notice was issued at the proper time, the same was received by the Respondent/Accused and when the cheques amount was not paid, the case was proved on behalf of the Complainant as per Section 138 of the N.I. Act. There was no rebuttal evidence adduced on the side of the Respondent/Accused and finally, held that the Respondent/Accused was guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since he had not paid the cheques amount in due time and for the said offence, a simple imprisonment one year was imposed on the Respondent/Accused and also directed the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Appellant to be paid by the Respondent/Accused under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Further, in default of payment of compensation amount, the Respondent/Accused was directed to undergo further three months simple imprisonment.

Appellant's Contentions:

6. Before this Court, the Appellant/Respondent/Complainant (as an aggrieved person), has focussed the present Criminal Appeal, taking a plea that the Cheques were issued pursuant to the Ex.P3 - Agreement, but this was not taken into account by the First Appellate Court in a proper and real perspective.

7. It is represented on be