ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner Thiru.M.Velmurugan is the complainant in C.C.No.216 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. He filed private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents herein. The case ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 09.10.2015. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.45 of 2016 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar. Vide Judgment dated 24.06.2016, the appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision case was filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and wanted this Court to set aside the impugned Judgments and allow this revision case.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the impugned Judgments do not call for any interference and wanted me to dismiss this revision case.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record.

5. The case of the complainant is that he was familiar with the accused even prior to the transaction in question. Thiru.S.Ramesh and Mrs. R.Asha Devi are husband and wife. They have been running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Ramesh Kanna Trading Centre at Sivakasi, having their address at 458, P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar Road, Sivakasi. According to the complainant, the accused approached him on 10.07.2012 and asked for a hand loan of Rs.6,25,00/- for their business purpose. Ramesh is said to have given a letter dated 10.07.2012 containing the said request. He also executed promissory note. Towards discharge of the said liability, Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 cheques were issued by the accused. A1 had signed in Ex.P6 cheque, while A2 had signed in Ex.P9 cheque. The said cheques were presented for collection and they were returned unpaid for the reason of 'insufficiency of funds'. After issuing Ex.P12 notice and Ex.P13 notice to A1 Ramesh and A2 Asha Devi respectively and after waiting for the mandatory limitation period, the private complaint came to be instituted. Cognizance of the offence was taken and summons were issued to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Bank Managers as P.W.2 and P.W.3. He also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On the side of the accused, the Inspector of Forensic Science Department, was examined as D.W.1. The sample signatures of the accused were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and the signature of the second accused found in the document was marked as Ex.D3. As already narrated, the case ended in acquittal and the acquittal was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. The question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the impugned Judgments of the Courts below deserve to be interfered with.

6. Even before commencing his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, made a fair statement that in order to give quietus to the issue, the respondents, without prejudice to their contentions, are willing to deposit a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.216 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar, within a period of eight weeks, if the revision petitioner expresses his willingness to burry the hatchet. This undertaken given before this Court is recorded.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents will definitely honour his undertaking, the moment, they receive a letter from the complainant to that effect that he would accept the said amount towards full and final settlement of all his claims against the respondents.

8. The case on hand involves two cheques namely Ex.P6 and Ex.P9. Ex.P6 cheque is admittedly a cheque drawn on the account maintained by the partnership firm namely M/s.Ramesh Kanna Trading Centre at Sivakasi. But the firm has not been impleaded as one of the accused. The Courts below have held that failure t