T YELLAPPA Vs. M NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in S.T.C.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur is the appellant herein and the appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal. The case of the complainant is that the respondent herein borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- on 28.03.2013 from him, promising to repay the same at the earliest and on the same day, he handed over a post dated cheque i.e. 21.11.2014, drawn on ICICI Bank, Hosur branch for Rs.6,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored with an endorsement "funds insufficient". A legal notice was issued by the complainant to the respondent, informing about the dishonored cheque and calling upon him to repay the amount. The respondent did not respond the notice.

(2.) At the trial, the respondent has taken a plea that he is also a vegetable vendor; that he used to procure vegetables from the vegetable shop run by the complainant and his brother on credit basis; that in the course of business transaction, cheques were given to the complainant as security; that the amount payable towards purchase of vegetables has already been paid; that the cheque in question was handed over in blank form, 4 or 5 years, prior to the complaint and that the cheque was misused and the present complaint has been filed. During trial, the complainant examined himself as Pw1 and marked 9 documents. The respondent examined himself as Rw1 and two more witnesses as Rw2 and Rw3 and marked 4 documents. After full trial, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused holding that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court wrongly placed the burden of proof on the complainant and that the order of Trial Court is liable to be set aside.