M/S NEW KRUBA JEWELLER Vs. V. KANCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment dated 21.09.2013 in STC No.278 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC at Magisterial Level II, Coimbatore.

(2.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC at Magisterial Level II), Coimbatore while passing the Impugned Judgment of acquittal in STC No.278 of 2012 on 21.09.2013 at Paragraph No.11 had interalia observed that in this case, the complainant is not the payee. The payee was a firm by name M/s New Kruba Jewelers. It was discussed supra that the complainant has filed the complaint only in his personal capacity and not as a partner of the firm. The complainant has not satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed by the statute. Though the signature and issuance of cheque were admitted by the accused, the complainant has to shift the initial burden cast on him. Only on shifting the initial burden, the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act could be drawn. The complainant had miserably failed to shift the initial burden. In fine, the accused is not guilty for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act' and consequently acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., Appellant's Contentions :

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant contents that the trial court in STC No.278 of 2012 dated 21.09.2013, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court contending that the trial court had mis-directed itself in arriving at a conclusion that the Appellant/Complainant was not 'the Payee of the cheque' and this had resulted in an 'Acquittal' of the Respondent/Accused.