JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 18.02.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2012 and confirm the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore in C.C.No.3199 of 2012 and convict the respondent/accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.)

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

1. The unsuccessful private complainant is the appellant herein.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.182 of 2012, dated 18.02.2014, wherein, the learned Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore in C.C.No.3199 of 2012, dated 27.09.2012.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to the complainant and the accused as per the rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The private complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused, for the dishonoured cheque to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same is taken up on file as C.C.No.353 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ambattur, Chennai, and the learned Judge had transferred the said C.C. to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore, Chennai and renumbered as C.C.No.3199 of 2012.

5. After the trial, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period one year and to pay cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation within a period of one month from that date, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2012, before the Court of Sessions, Chennai and by order dated 18.02.2014, the learned Judge has allowed the appeal. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the complainant before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Brief facts leading to file of the private complaint are as under:

a) Both the complainant viz., Siva Arasu and accused viz., Sridhar were friends and doing leather exporting business. Having well acquaintance with each other, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his urgent business expenses, during February 2004.

b) To repay the said loan, the accused had issued two cheques, vide (i) Cheque bearing number 598200 drawn on Punjab National Bank, dated 18.02.2006 & (ii) Cheque bearing No-127405, drawn on HDFC Bank dated 27.02.2006 each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

c) On 12.04.2006, both cheques were dishonored by the respective drawee banks for the reason “Payment stopped by the drawer” and “Account Closed” respectively.

d) The said dishonour of the cheques were brought to the knowledge of the accused, the drawer, through the statutory legal notice dated 26.04.2006, demanding the amount due on the cheques to be paid within 15 days.

e) On receipt of the said notice, the accused had replied on 16.05.2006 by stoutly denying the loan transaction and put forth his version that the cheques were given during the course of business without any consideration, for security at the time of receipt of advance commission for procuring foreign orders, had been misused.

8. Exs.P1 & P3 are the cheques issued by the accused as a proprietary of the Sun Shine Trading Company but in cheque it is mentioned as Letter of Authority, since, the accused is proprietaryship company.

9. On a perusal of Exs.P2 & P4/return memo and legal notice under Ex.P5, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that si