SATHIAMOORTHY Vs. M. HARIHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant, seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated 28.06.2006 passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and convict the respondent for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the complainant and accused.

(3.) The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the accused was running a book stall and he, on the assurance of making him as a partner in the stall, owed a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the complainant in the year 2001. Subsequently, the accused neither made him as a partner nor returned the amount to the complainant and when the amount was demanded, the accused had given a cheque dated 01.11.2001 drawn on ABN Amro Bank for Rs. 3,20,000/-, which, on presentation, was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". 3. 1. It was further alleged that the complainant immediately sent a legal notice dated 02.05.2002 to the accused and failure on the part of the accused either to repay the amount or respond to the legal notice resulted in lodging a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "N.I.Act"). Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, finding prima facie materials against the accused, has taken cognizance of the complaint on file in C.C.No.4130 of 2002. 3. 2. Before the Trial Court to prove the case, the complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.Ps.1 to 7. Further, on behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and one document was marked. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the Trial Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and aggrieved by such acquittal, the petitioner/complainant has invoked the appeal jurisdiction, seeking to set aside the said order.