P SELVAKUMAR Vs. K BALASUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, in STC.No.405 of 2007 dated 29.05.2009.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that the appellant and the respondent are friends and the appellant is doing contract business. The respondent approached the appellant/complainant and asked for financial assistance for which, he agreed to help him in his needs. Hence, during the 1st week of May 2007, the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only) from the appellant for his contract business purposes. Subsequently, during the 2nd week of May, the respondent herein borrowed another amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and ten thousand only). At that time, the respondent herein issued post dated cheques bearing Nos.908949 and 908950 respectively in favour of the appellant to be drawn from his bank account at State Bank of India, Salem-I towards discharge of the said loan amounts. Believing the words of the respondent, the appellant presented both the cheques for collection in his bank account at Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Salem District. But the said Bank returned the cheques with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the respondent on 04.07.2007. Knowing fully well that there will be no sufficient funds in the respondent's account to honour the cheques. Hence, the appellant issued legal notice to the respondent. Even though, the respondent acknowledged the notice, he has not come forward either to pay the amount or to issue any reply. Thus, the respondent had an intention of cheating the appellant and thereby committed the offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there is no other option for the appellant, except to file the complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The Magistrate has taken the case on file in S.T.C.No.405 of 2007.

(3.) On the side of the appellant, the complainant himself was examined as PW.1 and one Sathyanarayanan was examined as PW.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of the respondent, 3 witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Magistrate dismissed the case stating that the appellant had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.