JUDGEMENT
P. Velmurugan, J. -
(1.)The complainant is the appellant herein. The respondent herein was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the trial Court but was acquitted by the First Appellate Court.
(2.)The appellant/complainant herein has filed C.C. No.316 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, against the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short " the N.I. Act.). On completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, by Judgment dated 21.04.2011, convicted the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also sentenced him to undergo 6 month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Challenging the above said order, the respondent herein has filed C.A. No.37 of 2011 on the file of the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, by and which the the learned Ist Additional District and Session Judge has allowed the said appeal by the Judgment dated 16.07.2013, acquitting the respondent and setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent herein. Aggrieved by the above Judgment, the appellant herein has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
(3.)Brief facts of the case as follows:
3(i). The case of the appellant herein who is the complainant and the tenant in the premises owned by the respondent, is that the respondent is the landlord of the commercial complex by name Savitha Plaza. The appellant/complainant's husband Gopalakrishnan and his Father in law, had approached the respondent/landlord to let a portion of the building in the said complex. Originally, the respondent/landlord had agreed to let out an extent of 1520 sq. ft in the said complex on a monthly rent of Rs. 13 per Sq.ft and Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) was fixed as caution deposit. Accordingly, a lease agreement was entered into between the appellant/tenant and the respondent/landlord on 05.10.2002. But, the respondent/landlord had alloted an extent of 522 Sq.Ft. only instead of 1520 Sq.Ft. in the said complex to the appellant-tenant/complainant and raised rent to Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) was fixed as caution deposit for the above said alloted extent portion. The respondent/landlord also agreed to return the balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the total caution deposit amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) that was already paid by the appellant/complainant for an extent of 1520 Sq.Ft. to the respondent/landlord.
3(ii). In view of the above, the respondent/landlord had issued a cheque bearing No.394338, dated 15.03.2003, drawn on Corportion Bank, Pondicherry, for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) due to the appellant/complainant. According to the respondent/landlord instruction, the cheque was presented with the appellant's Bankers, Central Co-operative Bank, Cuddalore after 5 months, i.e. on 04.08.2003. The presented cheque was returned for the reason that "the payment stopped by the drawer". In this regard, the appellant-tenant/complainant sent a legal notice to the respondent/landlord on 25.08.2003. In reply dated 08.09.2003, the respondent/landlord denied the allegation made by the appellant/complainant. As the respondent/landlord has not paid the due amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the appellant-tenant/complainant, the appellant/complainant has filed complaint against the respondent/landlord under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.316 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II. Cuddalore.
3(iii). The learned Judicial Magistrate has questioned the respondent/landlord about the substance of the offence after perusing the entire documents. The respondent/landlord has denied the allegation made by the appellant/complainant. Thereafter, the case was posted for examination of complainant's/landlord side witnesses.
3(iv). On the side of complainant/appellant herein, the husband of the complainant Mr. Goplakrishnan had been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2., who is the complainant, and P.W.3., Mr.Sairam, an official of Central Co-operative Bank, had been examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 had been marked.
3(v). On the side of defence/respondent herein, Mr. Narayanan, Manager, Corporation Bank, Puducherry, had been examined as D.W.1, and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 had been marked.