This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment made by the learned I Additional Judge (TADA), Chennai, in Crl.A.No.73 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014, by and under which, the learned Judge has reversed the Judgment and conviction made by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.15490 of 2007 dated 06.03.2013.

2. The appellant is the complainant before the trial Court and the respondent is the accused. For the sake of convenience, they called as the complainant and the accused, respectively.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant for interest @ 24% per annum with an assurance that it would be returned back within a period of one month. Though the said amount was borrowed by the accused, he did not repay the same, as he assured. Therefore, according to the complainant, she had made repeated requests and demand, and in response to such repeated requests, the accused had issued a cheque No.330594 dated 21.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- drawn at Karnataka Bank Limited, Coimbatore.

4. The said cheque was presented at the complainant's Bank for collection and the same had been returned with a Return Memo dated 28.01.2002 stating “insufficiency of funds”. Thereafter, the complainant had issued a legal notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 11.02.2002. However, the said notice had not been received by the accused, as the same was returned on 22.02.2002 stating that there was no such person in the address. It is the further case of the complainant that the said notice was returned as no such person in the address but, the postal cover, after having tored, has been bundled with the thread and therefore, the complainant claimed that she had given a complaint to the Postal Department to take action against the erring postal person in this regard. Subsequently, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The trial Court taken the said complaint on file and issued summons for appearance of the accused and tried the case. After having considered the evidences placed by both sides, the trial Court by Judgment dated 06.03.2013 had found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, sentenced him for six months Simple Imprisonment and also directed the accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation, within a period of one month.

6. Aggrieved over the said Judgment and conviction made by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.73 of 2013 before the learned I Additional Judge (TADA), Chennai. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the evidence of both sides and after having gone through the Judgment of the trial Court has ultimately found that the accused was not guilty and therefore, the learned Appellate Court Judge, by his Judgment dated 28.02.2014, allowed the said appeal by setting aside the Judgment and sentence made by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the said Judgment of the First Appellate Court, the complainant preferred this appeal.

7. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as hand loan for interest @24% per annum. Since the said amount was not repaid as assured by the accused, the complainant claimed that several demands had been made orally, pursuant to which only a Cheque No.330594 (Ex.P.1) dated 21.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- drawn at Karnataka Bank Limited, Coimbatore, was issued by the accused and when the said cheque was presented at the Bank by the complainant, the same was returned as “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued, which, according to the complainant, the postal cover was opened and su