M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court (as a dissatisfied person) as against the Judgment dated 01.08.2016 in S.T.C. No. 12 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, (Fast Track Court), Erode.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.T.C. No. 12 of 2015 on 01.08.2016, at paragraph 20, had, among other things, observed that the Complainant (Appellant) had not established that the case cheque amount was the one which would come as a "Legally Enforceable Debt" and further that, it was observed that the Complainant (Appellant) had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the case cheque was issued by the Respondent/Accused for the loan obtained by him from the Complainant (Appellant) and ultimately held that the Respondents/A1 & A2 were not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted them under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

3. The Appellant/Complainant has challenged the trial Court's Judgment in S.T.C. No. 12 of 2015 dated 01.08.2016 by preferring the instant Appeal by taking a plea that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the 2nd Respondent/A2 had admitted the receipt of amount and execution of cheque.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant urges before this Court that the trial Court should have seen that the Respondents/Accused had failed to deny the existence of "Legally Recoverable Debt" after receipt of intimation of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant takes a plea that the trial Court ought to have consider the evidence of DW-1 in and by which she had deposed that the Appellant/Complainant gave Rs. 4,00,000/- to the 2nd Respondent/A2 in her presence and that the 2nd Respondent/A2 issued a cheque in favour of the Complainant agreeing to repay the amount within one month.

6. According to he Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, the trial Court should have taken into account that DW-3/A2 in his evidence had stated that he used to borrow money from the Son-in-Law of the Appellant/Complainant viz. DW-2 and issued cheque towards discharge of the said money. In fact, DW-3 (during cross examination) had feigned ignorance in regard to his failure to establish the said claim by examining DW-2.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant takes a stand that DW-3/A2 (in his cross examination) had admitted the suggestion regarding the value of the property sold by the Appellant/Complainant's husband through Ex.D2 - Sale Deed and indeed, this proves the fact that the Appellant/Complainant gave money to the 2nd Respondent/A2 which she was given her (through sale of property by her husband).

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the trial Court should have considered the evidence of DW-2, who had stated that he knew the borrowal of money by the 2nd Respondent/A2 from his Mother-in-Law viz. the Appellant/ Complainant and the same was not returned by him.

9. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant that the trial Court had committed an error in disbelieving the stand of the Appellant/ Complainant (during cross examination) that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given to her by her husband after selling the property.

10. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Accused that before the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant had not established with sufficient witness and documents that she lent a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Accused and therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no "Legally Enforceable Debt" and finally, held that the Appellant/Complainant had not established her charge against the Respondents/Accused in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and found them not guilty and acquitted them. It is