JUDGMENT :

The appellant/complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents/accused for offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the trial Court (the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-IV, George Town, Chennai) in C.C.No.3361 of 2017. After ful-fledged trial, the trial Court, by judgment, dated 10.10.2019 convicted the respondents for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced the 2nd respondent to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and the respondents 1 and 2 shall pay the cheque amount as compensation of Rs.1,26,78,120/- within one month, in default of payment the 2nd respondent to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved against the Judgment of the trial Court, the respondents preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court (the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai) in C.A.No.371 of 2019. The lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 18.03.2020 allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, dated 10.10.2019. Against which, the present appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the appellant and the respondents are referred as complainant and accused No.1 and 2 as shown in the complaint.

3. The brief facts of the case is that A1 is the company viz., M/s.Aegan Industries Private Limited, Tirupur incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and A2 is its Managing Director. The complainant was engaged in the business of power manufacturing and supplying. The accused and the complainant entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on 01.04.2013 in Chennai for supply of 2400 KWHR of power and each unit cost was Rs.5.59 for financial year 2016-17. A1 was making payment till February 2016, for purchase and utilization of power. Thereafter, the accused defaulted and delayed payments from February 2016 onwards. For consumption of 31,76,840 KW of power to the value of Rs.1,78,59,870/- became due. The accused agreed to pay the above said amount and in discharge to the liability, issued three cheques drawn by A1, signed by A2 as Managing Director for Rs.42,26,040/- each. During trial, the three cheques were marked as Exs.P2, P3 & P4. When the three cheques were presented for collection on 14.07.2017 with the complainant bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Royapuram Branch, Chennai, the same were returned with an endorsement “Account Closed” on 15.07.2017. Thereafter, a statutory notice dated 02.08.2017 was issued to the accused. A1 received the same and A2 failed to receive the same and the cover was returned. Ex.P6 is the legal notice dated 02.08.2017; Ex.P7 is the postal tracking receipt; Ex.P8 is the returned of notice of A2 and Ex.P9 is the reply notice sent by accused dated 17.08.2017.

4. In the reply notice (Ex.P9), the accused had taken a stand that three undated cheques were given for the purpose of security in the year 2016 which have been filled up by the complainant. There is admission of some dispute over the said liability, raised in the statutory notice. Hence, following the statutory conditions, the complainant (PW1) has filed a private complaint before the trial Court.

5. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the accused, no evidence and no documents marked. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence had preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court in C.A.No.371 of 2019. The learned appellate Court, by judgment, dated 18.03.2020, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Against which the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the accused did not deny the issuance of the three cheques and the signature found in it, thereby the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of