AMARAVATHI CHITS INVESTMENTS Vs. T M VIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant and the appeal is filed against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused in C. C. No. 1867 of 1994 on the file of the viith Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, madras, as per judgment dated 17-6-1996 for the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE private complaint was filed by the complainant stating that the complainant amaravathi Chits and Investments is a partnership firm and the accused horrowed money from the complainant and in discharge of the same, he issued a Cheque No. 991836 dated 26-12-1993 drawn on Indian overseas Bank, Triplicane, lor a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. The accused requested the complainant to present the cheque by the end of February, 1994 and when the cheque was presented for collection on 1-3-1994, it was returned with endorsement "insufficient funds. " After return of the cheque, the complainant contacted the accused and asked him to pay the amount but he was evasive and, therefore, lawyer's notice was issued on 7-3-1994, which was served on the accused on 10-3-1994. Since the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed on 8-4-2004, which was taken on file under S. 138 of the Act.

(3.) DURING enquiry, the complainant examined the Power of Attorney Padmanabhan as P. Ws. 1 and 2 other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 6. On the side of the accused, one Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Science Laboratory was examined as D. W. 1 and Exs. D. 1 to D. 3 were marked. The trial Court, considering such evidence adduced on either side, recording finding that there have been material alterations in the cheque Ex. P. 1 issued by the accused and the complainant has not proved the issuance of cheque by the accused in the complaint as well the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability to the complainant firm and, therefore, the complainant has not. proved the offence under S. 138 of the Act, acquitted the accused under S. 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said judgment is challenged by the complainant in this appeal.