The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court [as an affected person] as against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 02.11.2015 in S.T.C. No. 206 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Fast Track Court), Erode.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned 'Judgment of Acquittal' dated 02.11.2015 in S.T.C.No.206 of 2015, at paragraph 11, had, among other things, observed that “... without obtaining a license, the amount lent would not be the 'Legally Enforceable Debt'” and further at paragraph 15, had opined that 'no documents were filed in regard to the aspect that in the Complainant's Firm, Selvaraj was serving as a Managing Director and also for knowing about the case cheque amount details'. Also that, at paragraph 16, the trial Court had proceeded to observe that within six months from the commencement of the Complainant's Firm, it had the capacity to lend a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- for which no documents were filed on behalf of the Complainant and therefore, came to the conclusion that the Complainant's Firm had no capacity/wherewithal to lend a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- and a finding was rendered to the effect that the case cheque amount was not a 'Legally Enforceable Debt'.

3. In short, the trial Court ultimately found that the Complainant/ Appellant's Firm had not established beyond reasonable doubt its case against the Respondent/Accused that he had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Questioning the correctness of the Judgment of Acquittal delivered by the trial Court in S.T.C.No.206 of 2015 dated 02.11.2015, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that the Respondent/Accused had not denied the Execution of Cheque and therefore, the onus to rebut the presumption naturally arises under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant, the Respondent/Accused had not explained as to how the Ex.P1 - Case Cheque came into the hands of the Appellant/ Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent/Accused had not given any Reply to Ex.P3 Lawyer's Notice.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner emphatically contends that the Power Agent (P.W.1) had deposed that he is aware of the transaction between the Appellant and the Respondent/Accused and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that P.W.1 (Power Agent - Selvaraj) had not established that he had knowledge of the transaction is an incorrect one.

7. Continuing further, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant/ Complainant that in the Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957, it is specifically mentioned that any transaction based on Negotiable Instruments Act exceeding Rs.10,000/- would not come under the said Act, but this fact was omitted to be considered by the trial Court, which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.

8. A plea is taken on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that 'Judgment of Acquittal' of the trial Court in the main case was based only on surmises and not on available material evidence on record.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant brings it to the notice of this Court that in the instant case, the Respondent/ Accused had not pleaded any probable, acceptable and reasonable defence and in reality, on the date of issuance of Cheque, there was an existence of 'Legally Enforceable Debt'. Unfortunately, these aspects were not taken into consideration by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the decision Indiabulls Financial Services Limited & another V. M/s.Jubilee Plots and Housing Private Limited & others, 2010-2-L.W.75 at special page 76, whereby and whereunder, it is observed as follows:

“As per section 2(6)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, an advance made on the basis of a negotia