R. THANGAVEL Vs. K. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of the acquittal dated 08.10.2015 in S.T.C. No.380 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi.

(2.) The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi, while passing the impugned judgment of the acquittal in S.T.C. No.380 of 2011 on 08.10.2015 at para-16 ... among other things observed that ... 'on the side of the Respondent/Accused, a presumption in his favour as per Sec. 139 of NI Act was made and further, the Appellant/Complainant had failed to establish the ingredients of his case and finally came to the conclusion that the offence under Sec. 138 of NI Act was not established against the Respondent/Accused' and resultantly, acquitted him under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Questioning the correctness, validity and legality of the judgment of the acquittal, dated 08.10.2015 in S.T.C. No.380 of 2011 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court, by taking a plea that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration that in the instant case, the execution of Ex.P2, Cheque dated 30.10.2010 was not denied. Further, when the execution of cheque was not denied, the burden is on the part of the Respondent/Accused to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act, 1881. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant takes a stand that the trial Court had not considered the legal aspects of Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.