N. KRISHNAGIRI Vs. M/S. 18 STEPS MEDIAS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.RAVIKUMAR NO.5, NEW NO.80, THIRUVEEKA STREET, IKKARAI BOOLUVAPATTI, COIMBATORE 641 114

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.C.D.Sugumar, Learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.R.Kannan, Learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2014 as against the judgment dated 20.6.2014 in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pollachi.

(3.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pollachi, while passing the impugned judgment in S.T.C.No.1847 of 2012 (filed by the Appellant/Complainant), at para 14, had observed that there was no direct evidence to show that the Accused, who are residing at a different village/place, had got acquainted with the Appellant/Complainant and further, when there was no evidence as to at which place the money was given to the Accused and added further when the Appellant/Complainant, after stating that the Accused had issued the 10.3.2012 case cheque, in the cross examination had deposed that he had received the undated cheque, which was a contradictory one. Also, the trial court had proceeded to observe, in its judgment, that the Complainant, in his evidence, had stated that A2 and A3 had issued Exs.P7 and P8 notices and in the cross-examination had stated that he does not know whether reply notices were sent by the Accused. Moreover, the trial court had borne in mind that although it was mentioned that the Accused had paid two months interest, but, it was not mentioned as to what was the amount paid towards interest by each Accused and regarding that aspect, there was no evidence and besides that the trial court had observed that when the document No.1592/1989 was purported to be deposited by the Accused at the time of receiving money, the same was not produced before the court. Moreover, the trial court had come to a resultant conclusion that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption was rebuttal and since the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused, the benefit of doubt was given in favour of the Accused and ultimately, found the three Accused not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted them as per section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.