The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an 'Aggrieved Person') as against the judgment dated 05.10.2015 in S.T.C. No.310 of 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode.

2. It transpires that the Learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Tiruchengode while passing the impugned judgment on 05.10.2015 in S.T.C. No.310 of 2013 at paragraph No.9 had clearly observed that the case cheque was prior to the year 2008 as evident from Ex.D.5 to D.9 and also through evidence of D.W.2 and that apart, P.W.1 had admitted that he knew about the sale effected by the Respondent/Accused and his Father-in-Law as per Exs.D.3 and D.4 documents and if these were looked into in integral manner, then the version of the accused was acceptable one.

3. Also at paragraph No.10, the trial Court had opined that the version of the Appellant/Complainant was highly a doubtful one if a sum of Rs.40,000/- drawn on 11.10.2013 was taken into account and besides these, the Appellant/Complainant had also not filed the income tax account before the trial Court, which was an adverse factor against him. Moreover, the Day Book and Ledger were not filed by D.W.3 and that was also held to be a factor which stands against the Appellant/Complainant. Ultimately, the trial Court had found that the Appellant/Complainant was not guilty in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and acquitted him under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

4. Questioning the propriety 'Judgment of Acquittal' passed by the trial Court on 05.10.2015 in S.T.C.No.310 of 2013, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that the trial Court should have convicted the Respondent/Accused when he had admitted the signature of the Respondent/Accused in the case cheque. Further, it is the stand of the Appellant/Complainant that the Respondent/Accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the trial Court should not have taken into account the new defence raised by the Respondent/Accused, which was not put forward in the reply notice Ex.P.5 or under the questioning made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

6. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent/Accused is a 'Chronic Defaulter' and had borrowed the amount from various persons and issued cheques, which were all dishonoured as seen from Ex.P.7 'Statement of Account'.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant/Complainant had sufficient amount in Ex.P.7 'Statement of Account' and further the Respondent/Accused had fraudulently sold his properties, which resulted in 'Insolvency Petition' being filed against him by the Appellant's Father-in-Law.

8. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused that the cheque given by the accused in the year 2007 when he took loan from Senthil Murugan Finance, was presently used in a clandestine fashion and in fact, the case cheque was prior to the year 2008 as seen from Exs.D.5 to D.9 and from the evidence of D.W.2.

9. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused refers to Ex.P.6 - Bank Account Book and on perusal of the same, it is lucidly clear that from 5.10.2013 to 7.10.2013 a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was withdrawn and on 8.10.2013, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through Net Bank. Subsequently, the Appellant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 11.10.2013 and even after taking into account of the same, the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Respondent/Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him as hand loan for his urgent expenses on 16.10.2013 was a doubtful one, as opined by the trial Court.

10. Moreso, when the Appellant/Complainant's stand was that all his 'Revenue and Expenditure' were effect