This appeal arises against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.53 of 2008 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 04.02.2009 reversing the judgment passed in C.C.No.971 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore dated 08.02.2008 convicting the accused for offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 3 months S.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 1 month S.I.
2. The case of prosecution is that accused obtained a hand loan from appellant/complainant and towards repayment of borrowing, the accused gave a cheque bearing No.907833 dated 12.07.2004 drawn on IndusInd Bank, Coimbatore Branch, which upon presentation returned unpaid for the reason, insufficient funds. Appellant/complainant caused statutory notice and following procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint had been filed.
3. Before trial Court, appellant/complainant examined himself as sole witness and marked 5 exhibits. On the defence side, one witness was examined and no exhibits were marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 08.02.2008, convicted accused u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to 3 months S.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 1 month S.I. There against, accused preferred Crl.A.No.53 of 2008 on the file of learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore which was allowed and the accused was acquitted under judgment dated 04.02.2009.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
5. In acquitting respondent, Appellate Court has found that though it was the contention of appellant/complainant that respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.59,000/- through her husband and hence she is liable, no document has been produced by appellant/complainant to establish that respondent has borrowed money from him and issued a cheque towards repayment. In the circumstances, the contention of respondent that the cheque given towards security has been misused by appellant/complainant was an acceptable one. Further, appellant/complainant has failed to establish his case through oral and documentary evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, Appellate Court has acquitted accused/respondent. This Court finds no error in the judgment under challenge.
6. This Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.