5.The case of the complainant is that he was familiar with the accused even prior to the transaction in question. Thiru.S.Ramesh and Mrs.R.Asha Devi are husband and wife. They have been running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.Ramesh Kanna Trading Centre at Sivakasi, having their address at 458, P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar Road, Sivakasi. According to the complainant, the accused approached him on 10.07.2012 and asked for a hand loan of Rs.6,25,00/- for their business purpose. Ramesh is said to have given a letter dated 10.07.2012 containing the said request. He also executed promissory note. Towards discharge of the said liability, Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 cheques were issued by the accused. A1 had signed in Ex.P6 cheque, while A2 had signed in Ex.P9 cheque. The said cheques were presented for collection and they were returned unpaid for the reason of 'insufficiency of funds'. After issuing Ex.P12 notice and Ex.P13 notice to A1 Ramesh and A2 Asha Devi respectively and after waiting for the mandatory limitation period, the private complaint came to be instituted. Cognizance of the offence was taken and summons were issued to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Bank Managers as P.W.2 and P.W.3. He also marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On the side of the accused, the Inspector of Forensic Science Department, was examined as D.W.1. The sample signatures of the accused were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and the signature of the second accused found in the document was marked as Ex.D3. As already narrated, the case ended in acquittal and the acquittal was also confirmed by the Appellate Court. The question that arises for my consideration is as to whether the impugned Judgments of the Courts below deserve to be interfered with.
