The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal being dissatisfied with the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode in S.T.C.No.314 of 2012 dated 30.10.2015.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.T.C.No.314 of 2012 on 30.10.2015, at paragraph 10, had, inter alia, observed that '... Further, when an average prudent man advancing loan without obtaining other documents and also not knowing the full details of the Accused purported to have lent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was not a believable one and also opined that the Appellant/Complainant had adduced evidence in a contradictory manner quite inconsonance with the repudiation of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act made by the Respondent/Accused and came to a conclusion that the Appellant/Complainant had not established his case through an independent witness or through his Bank Account found him them guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

3. Questioning the Judgment of Acquittal dated 05.02.2016 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that in the instant case, the Respondent/Accused had admitted his signature in the cheque and in fact, the onus is on the Respondent/Accused, but rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the 2nd Respondent/A2 had obtained a hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Appellant/Complainant for which no pronote was taken by the Appellant but these facts were not borne in mind by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned Judgment.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that there is no explanation on the part of the Respondent/Accused as to how he had rebutted the presumption and in the case on hand the Respondent/Accused had not rebutted the presumption beyond reasonable doubt.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously takes a plea that the Appellant/Complainant had deposed in his evidence that he was carrying on agricultural activity in his own land and doing mechanical business and therefore, he had sufficient income to lend money to the Respondent/Accused. Unfortunately, the trial Court had failed to look into this aspect in a proper perspective.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that D.W.1 to D.W.3 [alleged to be Broker, Accountant and Manager of the 1st Respondent/A1 Mill] had not produced a single piece of document to show that they were really employed in the Mill. Furthermore, D.W.1 (in his cross examination) had stated that he would not aware of the Bank Accounts, property details of the 2nd Respondent/A2 and if that be the case, D.W.1 could not say that there was no necessity for the 2nd Respondent/A2 to obtain a hand loan.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court had ignored an important fact that for what purpose the cheque came into the hands of the Appellant/Complainant.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a plea that the Accused had not issued a reply to Ex.P4–Lawyer's Notice and in the absence of any reply furnished by the Respondent/Accused to Ex.P4, the version of the Appellant/Complainant merits acceptance in Law, which fact was not considered by the trial Court in a realistic manner.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa V. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 5 (SC) at special page 13 & 14, wherein, at paragraph 15, it is, among other things, observed as under:

“15. .... A perusal of the trial record also shows that the accused appeared to be aware of the fact that the cheque was with the complainant. Furthermore, the very fact that the accu