P. Rajamanickam, J.

This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirapalli) dated 17.11.2006 in Crl.A.No.102 of 2006 reversing the Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli in C.C.No.460 of 2002 dated 17.05.2006.

2. The appellant herein has filed a complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 stating that the respondent herein has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 02.12.2001 and with a view to discharge the said debt, the respondent has issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 06.05.2002. The said cheque was presented in the bank on 20.09.2002 for encashment and the same was returned on 21.09.2002 as "funds insufficient" in the respondent's account. The said fact was informed to the appellant on 28.09.2002. Thereafter, on 05.10.2002, the appellant has sent a statutory notice calling upon the respondent to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The respondent herein has received the said notice on 12.10.2002. Instead of paying the amount, he has sent a reply notice dated 12.10.2002 with false averments. Hence the appellant was constrained to file a private complaint to punish the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial court.

3. Based on the said complaint, the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli has taken the case on file in C.C.No.460 of 2002. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him and thereafter, he was questioned with regard to the offence said to have committed by him. He denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli, has tried the case.

4. During trial, on the side of the complainant, his daughter A. Valarmathi (Power Agent) was examined as PW1. She has stated in her evidence that her father gave a power of attorney in her favour for conducting the above case. The said power of attorney has been marked as Ex.P1. She further stated that on 02.12.2001, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father and subsequently with a view to discharge the said debt, he has issued a cheque dated 06.05.2002. The said cheque has been marked as Ex.P2. The said cheque was presented in the bank on 20.09.2002 and the same was returned on 21.09.2002 with a memo (Ex.P3) as "funds insufficient" in the account of the accused. Thereafter on 05.10.2002, a statutory notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and the office copy of the said cheque was marked as Ex.P4. The accused has received the said notice and the postal acknowledgment was marked as Ex.P5. After receipt of the notice, instead of paying the amount, he has sent a reply with false averments. The said reply notice has been marked as Ex.P6. A copy of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Thillai Nagar, has been marked as Ex.P7.

5. Evidence on the side of the complainant was closed with PW1 and thereafter the accused was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 The accused denied them as false and also filed a written statement. He examined himself as DW1 and examined his father as DW2.

6. DW1 and DW2 have stated in their evidence that the DW1's mother was a subscriber in the chit which was conducted by PW1 and that being so, on 04.06.2002 at about 2.00 p.m., PW1 and six others came to their house and criminally intimidated DW1's mother and obtained signatures in two blank pronotes and also they have taken a blank cheque which was signed and kept by the accused in the bureau and the said cheque has been filled in the name of the complainant and filed the above case. After consulting with the advocate, DW2 has filed a complaint on 12.09.2002 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli and the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Thillai Naga