( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant/om Finance corporation as against an order of acquittal dated 11-6-1999 recorded in C. C. No. 600 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

( 2 ) THE appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ).

( 3 ) IT is the case of the complainant that it is registered firm and on 31-8-1995, the first respondent along with her husband approached the complainant-Corporation and requested for an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the purpose of family and legal necessities and the husband of the accused expressed his willingness to stand a guarantor. The accused, after satisfying with the terms and conditions of the Corporation, submitted two loan applications, each for Rs. 1,00,000/- and also agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 2% p. a. , payable on or before the 14th of every month. The accused received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cash from the complainant-Corporation on the same day i. e. , 31-8-1995. On repeated demands, the accused came to the complainancorporation and after calculating the loan account, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is arrived at and the accused requested the Corporation to receive the said amount on instalment basis. On 31-1-1998, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 454419 for a sum of rs. 75,000/- in favour of the complainant- corporation and requested to deposit the said cheque in the month of July, 1998. Again on 28-2-1998, the accused issued another cheque bearing No. 454420 for a sum of rs. 75,000/- and requested to deposit the same in the month of July, 1998. And again on 31-3-1998, the accused issued another cheque bearing No. 454421 for a sum of rs. 75,0007- and requested to deposit all the three cheques in the month of July, 1998. The accused also promised to pay another sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 30-8-1998 to clear off the debt. On 22-7-1998, the complainant deposited the cheque bearing No. 454419 for realisation. But, all the three cheques were dishonoured for want of funds. When questioned about the bouncing of cheques, the accused requested time up to August, 1998. As such the said cheques were again deposited on 12-8-1998. On 17-8-1998, all the three cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. On 21-8-1998, the complainant issued a notice to the accused demanding payment within 15 days. The accused having received the same, sent a reply stating that an amount of rs. 2,40,000/- has already been paid. On seeing the said reply notice, the complainant issued a telegraphic notice to the accused and her advocate asking them to send the copies of payment receipts within th ree days, but they failed to produce the same. The accused knowingly and intentionally issued three cheques in favour of the complainant- corporation to clear off the legally enforceable debt even though there are no sufficient funds in her account and thereby committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the complaint.

( 4 ) TO prove the case of the prosecution, p. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-18 were marked. On behalf of defence, d. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D-1 to D-5 were marked.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate commencing from para 9 up to para 16 had discussed the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that there are certain suspicious circumstances and also had taken note of the fact that the three cheques bear serial Nos. 454419,454420 and 454421 and the possibility of issuance of such serial cheques is very remote and hence, the issuance of blank cheques at the time of taking loan is quite possible. After recording reasons, ultimately the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the ingredients of "legally enforceable debt" had not been proved and recorded acquittal. As can be seen from the judgment, there is no append