The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove passing off consideration for a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai made in C.A.No.318 of 2017, dated 28.09.2018, confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.5804 of 2006, by judgment dated 05.09.2017.)

1. The complainant is the revision petitioner herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of this case is as follows:-

(a) The petitioner herein had filed a private complaint as against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same had been taken on file by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.5804 of 2006 and later had been transferred to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai.

(b) The petitioner and the respondent were good friends for quite a long time and the respondent had approached the petitioner and represented that he intend to sell his property situated at Thanjavur and the respondent had expressed his willingness to sell the said property to the petitioner, if the petitioner is interested to buy for which the petitioner had offered to purchase the same and the offer was accepted by the respondent and after negotiations, the respondent had agreed to sell the property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner had paid an advance of Rs.9,00,000/- which was duly received by the respondent and the Sale Agreement Payment Receipt was executed by the respondent (Ex.P9).

(c) Later, the respondent having received the advance amount had not come forward to execute the sale deed and after much persuasion from the petitioner, the respondent assured to repay the advance amount by citing a reason that due to certain personal problems, he is not willing to sell the property and the petitioner had agreed, since the respondent was a good friend of the petitioner and the respondent had assured him that he shall repay the advance amount together with interest.

(d) The further case of the petitioner is that, the respondent has represented towards his liability to the petitioner for the return of the advance amount had issued a cheque (Ex.P1) dated 29.03.2006, bearing No.763825, drawn on City Union Bank Ltd, South Main Road, Tanjore Branch, for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only), and when the petitioner as requested by the respondent, when presented the said cheque in his bank on 29.03.2006, i.e., Indian Bank, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai, the same was returned unpaid for the reason "Account closed", and the same was intimated to the petitioner by his banker''s through their Return memo dated 13.04.2006 (Ex.P2) and Debit advice dated 19.04.2006 (Ex.P3)

(e)The petitioner had issued a legal notice on 09.05.2006 (Ex.P4) and the same was received by the respondent on 11.05.2006, and the acknowledgment card is Ex.P5. The respondent even after the expiry of fifteen days had not chosen to make the payment of the amount covered by the cheque and the respondent had chosen to issue a reply notice 24.05.2006 (Ex.P6) and the petitioner had duly send a rejoinder dated 07.06.2006 (Ex.P7) to the respondent and the Acknowledgment due card in respect of the rejoinder is Ex.P8. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the complaint on 14.06.2006.

4. The petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, in support of his case and the respondent had examined himself as D.W.1 and further examined defense witnesses D.W.2 K.Baskaran and D.W.3 Manager, City Union Bank were examined and marked Exs.D1 to D11.

5. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court had found that, the respondent is not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and had acquitted the respondent by ju