JUDGMENT

The criminal appeal has been filed against the reversal judgment of acquittal passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.A.No.182 of 2016 dated 07.12.2018, reversing the judgment dated 01.06.2016 in C.C.No.12250 of 2008 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2 Originally the first respondent police registered a case against the second respondent and two others for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 468 and 109 IPC. After investigation, laid charge sheet, which was taken on file in C.C.No.12250 of 2018 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In order to prove the charges, prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused they denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was marked.

3 The learned Magistrate, after trial and hearing both the parties, by judgment dated 01.06.2016, convicted the second respondent alone and acquitted the other two accused from all the charges, and sentenced the second respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of eight weeks for each of the offence under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of the Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six weeks for each of the offence under Sections 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC, and ordered the sentence to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, the second respondent/A1 filed an appeal in C.A.No.182 of 2016 and the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after hearing both the parties, by judgment dated 07.12.2018 allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant from all the charges.

4 Aggrieved over the reversal judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defacto complainant would submit that the appellant and the second accused were the Directors of M/s.Basil Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd., and one Sundaram was an employee as Manager and the appellant entrusted the management of the Company to the second respondent/A1 and he was attending the field activities. Between September and December 2006 the Company carried out the work of installing the Air conditioners at the instance of M/s.Rishap Infor Park Pvt. Ltd., Guindy. The appellant/defacto complainant completed the works in the name of M/s.Basil Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd., but the second respondent/A1 raised the invoices in the name of Basic Air Conditioning Systems and obtained the cheques and also encashed the same through the Bank account with M/s.Vijya Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch and HDFC Bank, for a sum of Rs.27,14,330/- under several work orders placed by M/s.Rishap Info Park Pvt. Ltd., to M/s.Basil Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd., The second accused namely Samuthiram, who is the elder brother of A1, in connivance with the second respondent/A1, opened an account in the name of M/s. Basic Air Conditioning Systems to facilitate the encashment of the cheque drawn on the invoices by A3 Sundaram and A1 and thereby the second respondent/A1 cheated the defacto complainant and made loss to him by dishonestly misappropriating the payments due to M/s.Basil Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd.

6 The learned counsel would further submit that the lower appellate Court has failed to analyze the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.14 and the documents marked by the prosecution viz. Exs.P2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 32 and 36. It is the grievance of the appellant that the first accu