1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment made in C.A.No.72 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupur, dated 09.02.2015, reversing the Judgment made in S.T.C.No.609 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupur, dated 08.10.2014.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant and the respondent herein is the accused and they would be called as complainant and accused respectively for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a partnership firm dealing with compacting of hosiery cloth on job work basis. One K.K.Periyasamy and one Suguna are the partners of the complainant firm.

4. The accused was one of the partner of M/s. Dress Modes, which was dealing with manufacturing and selling of hosiery garments. In this context, the accused firm entrusted the job of compacting of hosiery cloth on job work basis to the complainant and the complainant also undertaken the said work on credit basis.

5. Because of the said business transactions, according to the book of accounts of the complainant, there had been a due for a sum of Rs.2,32,548/- payable by the accused firm towards the complainant firm.

6. It is the further case of the complainant that, in order to settle the major portion of the said due of Rs.2,32,548/-, the accused on behalf of the accused firm, namely M/s. Dress Modes had come forward to issue his personal cheque, dated 11.10.2004 in Cheque No.744220, for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs drawn on the Federal Bank Ltd., Tirupur Branch. On the same day, i.e., on 11.10.2004, the accused had issued a letter in the letter pad of the firm called M/s. Dress Modes that, in order to pay the outstanding dues to the extent of Rs.2.3 lakhs payable by M/s. Dress Modes firm, he had given the said cheque from his personal account for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.

7. When the said cheque dated 11.10.2004 was presented by the complainant at its Bank, namely Indus Ind Bank, Tirupur Branch on 22.11.2004, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured on 26.11.2004 for the reason "Funds insufficient".

8. It is the further case of the complainant that, on receipt of the information given by its Bank, a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (In short "The NI Act") on 17.12.2004 was sent to the accused demanding to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. However, the said legal notice was returned to the complainant on 24.12.2004 stating that the addressee has left. Therefore having knowledge about the dishonour of the cheque and also having knowledge about the legal notice having been issued to him, the accused had not come forward to settle the cheque amount within the stipulated period of 15 days, thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

9. Therefore, in that circumstances, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial Court, i.e., J.M.No.II, Tirupur, where it was taken on file as S.T.C.No.609 of 2005.

10. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the complainant, its Manager-cum-Power of Attorney Holder, one Kanda Parameswaran was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the complainant, six documents, i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, two witnesses, i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and on behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.3, i.e., 3 documents were marked.

11. The trial Court, after having tried the case, has rendered its Judgment, by its order, dated 08.10.2014 by and under which, the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, failing which the accused has to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for three months.

12. Aggrieved over the said Judgment and conviction made against the accused, he preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.72 of 2014 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.

13. Having heard the app