C. KATHIRVEL Vs. M/S. K.S.V. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S. KATHIRVEL GUJILIYAMPARAI, VEDACHANDHUR, DINDIKKAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal being dissatisfied with the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode in S.T.C.No.314 of 2012 dated 30.10.2015.

(2.) The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.T.C. No. 314 of 2012 on 30.10.2015, at paragraph 10, had, inter alia, observed that '... Further, when an average prudent man advancing loan without obtaining other documents and also not knowing the full details of the Accused purported to have lent a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 was not a believable one and also opined that the Appellant/Complainant had adduced evidence in a contradictory manner quite inconsonance with the repudiation of presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act made by the Respondent/Accused and came to a conclusion that the Appellant/Complainant had not established his case through an independent witness or through his Bank Account found him them guilty under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted under Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C.

(3.) Questioning the Judgment of Acquittal dated 05.02.2016 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that in the instant case, the Respondent/Accused had admitted his signature in the cheque and in fact, the onus is on the Respondent/Accused, but rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the 2nd Respondent/A2 had obtained a hand loan of Rs. 2,50,000.00 from the Appellant/Complainant for which no pronote was taken by the Appellant but these facts were not borne in mind by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned Judgment.