As the parties in both the appeals are the same and common questions of fact and law arise between the same parties in these two appeals, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the order of acquittal in C.C.Nos.56 of 2007 and 185 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode. The appellant has filed two complaints. C.C.No.56 of 2007 relates to dishonour of the Cheque bearing No.227827 dated 27.10.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-. C.C.No.185 of 2006 relates to dishonour of the Cheque bearing No.227828 dated 03.01.2006 for Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The case of the complainant is as follows:-

[i] On 20.10.2005, the respondent herein took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant promising to repay the same within a week with interest at the rate of 24% and issued a post-dated cheque dated 27.10.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- and paid Rs.2,335/- towards interest for seven days. Subsequently, on 03.01.2006, the respondent took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant promising to repay the same within 70 days with interest at the rate of 24% and issued a post-dated cheque dated 03.01.2006 for Rs.5,00,000/- and paid Rs. 23,335/- towards interest for 70 days. Those cheques were dishonoured when presented for collection through Indian Bank due to “funds insufficient” in the account of the respondent. The Complainant issued legal notice dated 02.02.2006 calling upon the respondent to pay the cheque amount. As the respondent failed to make payment, she has preferred the complaints.

[ii] The respondent has denied that she borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant. According to her, the cheques in question were not issued for discharge of any debt. Her case is that she entered into a sale agreement with the complainant and two cheques including the cheques in question were handed over to her as security for the due performance of the contract. It is her further case that as per the agreement, she has purchased the property from the complainant on 05.10.2005. Ex.D.3 is the copy of the sale deed.

[iii] At the time of sale, the complainant informed that she had lost the two cheques and promised that she would not misuse those cheques [one cheque dated 27.10.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another cheque dated 03.01.2006 for Rs.5,00,000/-] and to that effect, she issued a receipt [Ex.D.4.]. On the same date, the respondent and three others were entered into an agreement [Ex.D.5] with Sivasubramaniam, husband of the complainant and paid Rs.13,87,000/- in cash and Rs.10,00,000/- by means of two cheques, each for Rs.5,00,000/-. These two cheques were encashed by the husband of the complainant. In view of the undertaking [Ex.D.4] given by the complainant, the respondent instructed her Bank by means of letter [Ex.D.9] to stop payment for the said two cheques. As the husband of the complainant has not come forward to perform his part of contract under Ex.D.5, the suit has been filed in O.S.No.193 of 2006 on the file of the Principle District Court, Erode. Ex.D.8 is the decree copy. Thereafter, instead of returning the said two cheques, the complainant misused those cheques and filed two complaints, namely, C.C.Nos.56 of 2007 and C.C.No.185 of 2006.

[iv] The complainant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined Arunkumar [D.W.3], who is an attestor to the receipt [Ex.D.4]. She has also examined the Bank Manager, Corporation Bank [D.W.2] to show that payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made to the husband of the complainant by means of two cheques. The Trial Court on an analysis of the evidence available on record held that the complainant had failed to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appellant filed the present appeals after obtaining leave.

4. The learned counsel appearin