M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 06.09.2013 in C.C.No.3332 of 2010 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court No.IV), George Town, Chennai.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.3332 of 2010 dated 06.09.2013, at paragraph 14, had, among other things, observed that '... the afore-stated financiers were not examined in the case to prove the debt amount to be paid by the Respondent to the financiers', further the said financiers details were not informed on behalf of the Complainant and that for collecting the debt, the financiers had not given any authorisation and opined that under the present circumstances, there arises suspicion on the case of the Complainant and by granting the benefit of doubt in favour of the Respondent/Accused found him not guilty, since the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

3. Challenging the Legality of the Judgment of Acquittal dated 06.09.2013 passed by the trial Court in acquitting the Respondent/ Accused, the Appellant/Complainant (through his Power Agent) has filed the instant Appeal, basically contending that the trial Court had acquitted the Respondent/Accused based only on 'presumptions, surmises and conjectures' and furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 was not taken into account while passing the impugned Judgment.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent/Accused had borrowed the Loan, which was arranged by the Appellant from numerous financiers and that the same was paid by means of cheque, which was encashed by the Respondent, which was not disputed at any point of time.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to consider Ex.P2 (Confirmation Letter dated 27.04.2009 in favour of the Appellant/Complainant) and the said execution of the document was not disputed by the Respondent and this pivotal aspect was not borne in mind at the time of passing of the impugned Judgment.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a legal plea that the Appellant/Complainant is the Holder of Ex.P2 - Confirmation Letter dated 27.04.2009 and in fact, as per Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Appellant is a 'Holder of Case Cheque' - Ex.P3 and consequently, entitled to receive the recovered amount due from the third parties concerned.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court had failed to consider the ingredients of Section 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which speaks of 'Effect of Endorsement'. Also, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant is an Agent on behalf of the Financiers, who had advanced loan to the Respondent/Accused [based on the Confirmation Letter - Ex.P2], in and by which, an express implied - authority is given to the Appellant. In short, the Respondent/Accused had executed Ex.P2 - Confirmation Letter in terms of Section 187 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant/Complainant has 'Holder of Case Cheque' - Ex.P3 is entitled to collect the amount due in the instrument, but the trial Court had failed to consider this aspect, which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to submit that the Respondent/Accused (D.W.1) had admitted in his evidence about the availing of loan and the same was credited in the account of the Respondent which reflected in the statement of account of the Respondent Bank (Ex.D1). However, these salient aspects were not looked into by the trial Court in a correct perspective. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant draws the attention of this Court to the effect that the Respondent/Accus