J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in C.C.No.2457 of 2016 dated 08.03.2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.2457 of 2016 in which, the respondent is the accused. The complainant had filed the private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 and 148 of the Amended Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai, and the learned Magistrate dismissed the same and acquitted the accused by order dated 08.03.2018.

3. Challenging the same, the complainant filed appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.176 of 2018 and the same was made over to learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The said appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted. Challenging the same, the accused filed revision before this Court in Crl.RC.No.828 of 2019. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.Rajalingam Vs.Suganthalakshmi, the appeal against the acquittal will not lie before the Court of Session and it will lie only before this Court and therefore, the Judgment of the lower appellate Court/VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, passed in Crl.A.No.176 of 2018 dated 20.08.2019 is not valid. However, the revision can be transmitted into to appeal. Accordingly, the revision was suitably converted into appeal against acquittal as per the order of this Court dated 27.07.2022.

4. The specific case of the appellant is that there was an agreement of sale between the appellant and the respondent. The property belongs to the respondent and his son and as a owner and power of attorney to his son, there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent dated 06.02.2013 to sell the property and the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.6 Crore. On the date of agreement of sale, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.5 Crore to the respondent as advance and subsequently due to financial constraint, the sale was not materialised. Thereafter, the respondent and his son came forward to refund the advance amount of Rs.5 Crore which was paid by the appellant towards part of sale consideration. Further, the respondent had intended to sell the property to a 3rd party and in order to get clearance from the appellant, there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the appellant and the respondent and his son dated 20.11.2015 since unless the appellant gives clearance to the respondent, he could not sell the property to 3rd party. On the date of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent repaid a sum of Rs.1 Crore through RTGS towards the refund of the advance amount and for the balance amount, the respondent issued two cheques out of which, one cheque for Rs.50 lakhs bearing No.000107 dated 12.01.2016 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Thyagaraya Nagar Branch and another cheque for Rs.3,50,00,000/- bearing No.000124 dated 20.11.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank, Kotturpuram Branch. Further, the respondent instructed the appellant to present the said cheques after 45 days from the date of Memorandum of Understanding. After 45 days, when the appellant approached the respondent for presenting the cheques, the respondent instructed him to present the cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- on 04.02.2016 and the another cheque for Rs.3,50,00,000/- on 08.02.2016. Accordingly, the appellant presented the same for collection through his bank on 04.02.2016 and 08.02.2016. But the same were returned with endorsements “funds insufficient” on 05.02.2016 and 09.02.2016 respectively. Thereafter, despite repeated requests made by the appellant, the respondent did not give any response and therefore, the appellant issued statutory notices dated 29.09.2016 through his Advocate calling upon the respondent to pay the amount of the disputed