1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 made in Crl. A. No. 204 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai reversing the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent/accused by the judgment dated 27.03.2008 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby convicting the respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default three months simple imprisonment.

2. The facts of the private complaint preferred under section 200 of Cr.P.C., punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows:

The accused had approached the complainant for a loan to purchase a 1996 Model Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No. TN21 X 9595 under Hire Purchase Agreement. The complainant sanctioned and disbursed the loan for a sum of Rs. 3,19,800/- to the accused on 06.12.2003 as per the Hire Purchase Agreement. The accused agreed to repay the said loan amount in 28 monthly installments i.e., Rs. 12,000/- for the 1st installment and 11,400/- for the remaining 27 installments. The accused borrowed in payment of dues and he issued the cheque bearing number 649127 dated 31.05.2004 drawn on HDFC Bank, Valsaravakkam Branch to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- towards the repayment of the loan borrowed by him in favour of the complainant.

3. On instructions, the said cheque was presented by the complainant and the same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement Account Closed. On 01.06.2004, it was intimated to the complainant through the return memo dated 02.06.2004. Thereafter, the complainant caused legal notice dated 11.06.2004 and after the receipt of the same, the accused replied by the reply notice dated 29.06.2004 denying the averments made in the legal notice caused by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial court. The complaint was taken on file and copy of the same was furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

4. The complainant examined PW-1 and the Power of Attorney was marked as Ex.P.1, Cheque was marked as Ex.P2, return memo was marked as Ex.P3, Debit Advice was marked as Ex.P4, legal notice was marked as Ex.P5, acknowledgement card was marked as E.P6, reply notice by the accused was marked as Ex.P.7 and the Hire Purchase Agreement and receipt dated 29.12.2003 were marked as Exs.P8 and P9. On the side of the accused, he did not adduce any evidence, but he marked documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case found that the accused was guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

5. As against the said conviction, the accused preferred appeal and the appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Hence the complainant preferred this appeal as against the acquittal of the accused.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the issuance of cheque and signature of cheque are not denied by the accused. It was issued only for the legally enforceable debt for the loan obtained by the accused under Hire Purchase Agreement. He would further contend that as per Section 118 of N.I. Act, the presumption is in favour of the complainant and as per section 200 of N.I. Act, the holder of the blank signed cheque is empowered / authorized by the signatory of the cheque (drawer of the cheque) to fill in the contents including the vehicle, date, words on the cheque. The writings and the signature being in different inks by itself cannot permit the accused to wriggle out of his otherwise established debt or liability as per Hire Purchase agreement/Clauses 20 and 21. It is very clearly stated that the Hirer can become the owner of the vehicle only after paying all the money due to the financier. Until then, he cannot be deemed to