Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition (as an aggrieved person) praying permission of this Court to grant him Special Leave to prefer an Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., as against the Judgment dated 18.10.2016 in S.T.C.No.153 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level II), Poonamallee.

3. The trial Court while passing the Impugned 'Judgment of Acquittal' dated 18.10.2016 in S.T.C.No.153 of 2014 at Paragraph No.21 had interalia observed that '---there is no evidence on the part of the complainant to show the existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque' and further at Paragraph No.22 had proceeded to observe that '....defence has raised a probable defence that the cheque was given as security towards chit transaction' and finally came to the consequent conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were insufficient and that the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2, Ex.D1 to Ex. D3 were sufficient to disprove the case of complainant and consequently found the Respondent/Accused not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,

4. Questioning the legality, validity of the Impugned Judgment of Acquittal in S.T.C.153 of 2014 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal in SR48767 of 2016 as an affected person primarily by taking a plea that the trial Court had failed to consider that the Respondent/Accused had not denied the issuance of cheque to the Appellant/Complainant.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant submits that the Respondent/Accused had admitted his signature in the cheque, but this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant proceeds to take a plea that the Respondent/Accused had admitted his liability to repay the amount to the Appellant/ Complainant. However, the trial Court had failed to consider this aspect, which had ultimately resulted in 'Miscarriage of Justice'.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant urges before this Court that the trial Court should have considered the evidence of D.W.1, who had admitted that he is bound to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant. Even D.W.2 in his evidence had stated that the Respondent/Accused is liable to pay around a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant, but the trial Court had failed to consider the same in a proper manner.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant projects an argument that the Respondent/Accused had not issued any reply to the Ex.P.3, Statutory Legal Notice dated 19.08.2014 and the non issuance of reply to Ex.P.3 is certainly an adverse circumstance, not favourable to the Respondent/Accused.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant contends that the 'Onus of Proof' is on the Respondent/Accused to establish that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant was not issued with cheque or in the alternative, the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had misused the cheque.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant takes a plea that originally there was a chit transaction between the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/Accused in the year 2012 and later, after completion of the said transaction, the Respondent/ Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as loan from the appellant/complainant on 01.04.2004 etc.,

11. Finally, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant that the Respondent/Accused had not corroborated his case either through oral or documentary evidence and in fact based on the available material on record, the trial Court should have convicted the Respondent/Accused.

12. Conversely, it is the stand of the