R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

1. The complainant in C.C.No.3788 of 2001 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, is the appellant herein. By a judgment dated 18.10.2006, the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents/accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act"] and sentenced the second respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo further period of 2 months simple imprisonment.

2. Aggrieved over the said conviction, the accused prepared an Appeal [in Crl.A.No.301 of 2006] before the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, wherein he reversed the verdict of conviction and acquitted the respondents/accused. As against the order of acquittal dated 24.10.2009, the complainant has preferred the present Appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal may be stated briefly: The appellant [complainant] is a partnership firm carrying on the business in Galvanized Steel Tubes, Pipes, Pipe Fittings and other allied products. On behalf of the first accused firm [first respondent], the second accused [second respondent] in the capacity, as its partner approached the complainant and on the basis of the orders placed by the accused, the complainant supplied the materials to the accused. The last supply was made and the balance outstanding in this regard is Rs. 2,00,000/-. In order to discharge the liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing serial No.119234 dated 31.12.2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Chennai.

4. On receiving the said cheque, the complainant presented the same through his bankers for realisation on 17.05.2001 and the same was returned on 18.05.2001 with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". The fact of the dishonour was intimated to the complainant by his bankers. Therefore, on 24.05.2001, the complainant issued a statutory notice to the respondents through his counsel under section 138 of N.I. Act. Having received the said notice, both the accused have failed and neglected to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. In the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1, besides 11 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the respondents, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 11 documents were exhibited as D.1 to D.11. After concluding the trial, the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.

6. After elaborate enquiry, on 24.10.2009, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction. Against which, now the appellant being the complainant in the trial Court approached this Court for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and for restoring the order of conviction passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

7. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, I have heard the arguments of Mr.J.Jaseem Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.V.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant [complainant] contended that the Lower Appellate Court has erred in finding the respondents guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act stating that the material alteration found in the cheque is not an admitted alteration. Further, the Lower Appellate Court is not justified in applying the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act.

9. Supporting the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

10. Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Lower App