11.Though the trial Court acquitted the respondents, prosecution side has examined as many as 6 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. Out of which, Exs.P.14,15,16, 18 and 20 clearly show that there are fixed deposits made by the defacto complainant with the respondents company. Further, the mother of P.W.1 has already preferred a complaint before the P-1 Police Station. No action was taken on the complaint, for which, the mother of the P.W.1 also approached the Judicial Magistrate No.V. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.V forwarded the same to the respondent police. It shows that there are financial transactions between the mother of P.W.1 and the respondents/accused. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that more than 1 person should deposit in a finance company to attract the Tamil Nadu Protection of Depositors (Financial Establishments) Act 1997. Since, the defacto complainant, his wife and their daughter, P.W.1 were deposited their money in respondents company, which leads to three persons. Hence, even as per the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents the Tamil Nadu Protection of Depositors (Financial Establishments) Act 1997, is very well applicable to the present case. Even though, the investigation officer failed to send the signatures of the accused to the handwriting expert to get their opinion, signatures contained in the fixed deposit receipts are not denied by the respondents. As per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court itself can compare with the signatures contained in the fixed deposit receipts and Exs.C.1 to C.3. Hence, the same was compared with by the trial Court and the signatures are also matching with the signatures contained in the Exs.P.1 to P.11. Though the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 6, the trial Court has failed to consider these aspects. The respondents on the defence, whose witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to D.W.3, have not dis-proved the case of the prosecution and the defence taken by the respondents is not proved in the manner known to law. Being the appellate Court, this Court has to re- appreciate the entire evidences and has to give independent findings. Therefore, on a perusal of the entire materials available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence in the manner known to law and the trial Court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and simply dismissed the case of the
