1. The appellant-complaint M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., seeks to assail the 15 acquittal judgements of even dated 28.06.2001 passed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in the respective private complaint cases vide C.C.Nos.56, 57, 54, 60, 59, 52, 61, 62, 65, 63, 58, 55, 64, 51 & 53 of 2001 filed by said complainant (under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881-amended by Act 66 of 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'), which came into force w.e.f., 01.04.1989. The accused in these cases are no other than the area dealers of the products of the complainant, by name M/s. H.M. Tyres, represented by Mr. Hameed Muzafaruddin(A-1), said Muzafaruddin (A-2) individually, so also Mr. Adil Moizuddin (A-3). The complainant - M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., filed the complaints, rep. by its employee, duly authorised (Mr. K.G.Nair – the then District Commercial in-charge, on whose sworn statement, cognizance was taken on the 15 complaint cases for the offence under the provisions of the Act and later changed the authorisation to the then District Commercial in-charge Mr. Krishna Rao – P.W.1).

2. The case of the complainant in all these cases was that for the supply of the products, like Tyres, Tubes, etc., through its Branch Office at Hyderabad, for the orders placed by the accused, being their dealers, from time to time under the respective invoices, for the amounts covered thereunder for each of the invoices, the accused issued the respective cheques, total 43 in number, during the period between 29.4.2000 and 23.5.2000, for a total amount of Rs.12,09,111/-, when presented for collection returned dishonoured and for the statutory notice of demand intimating the dishonour and to pay, the accused issued a reply with false averments saying no liability and failed to pay, hence the respective complaints. It is pursuant to said complaints and from the sworn statement of the complainant’s authorised District Incharge by then, by name Mr. K.G.Nair, cognizance was taken on the 15 complaint cases for the offence under the provisions of the Act and after the accused were summoned and put in appearance from supply of copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, “The Cr.P.C.”), when questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C., they pleaded not guilty and were put to trial and in the course of trial, the complainant’s authorised employee viz., the then District Commercial in-charge Mr. Krishna Rao was examined as P.W.1 and placed reliance upon the respective authorisation, Certificate of Incorporation of the company, the respective invoices for the supply of stocks as ordered by the accused and the cheques issued pursuant to it and on presentation of the cheques returned dishonoured as per the respective Memos and the statutory Notice issued with acknowledgement and certificate of posting in proof of service and the reply of the accused and also the statement of account of the accused with the complainant of the relevant period. In most of the cases, besides Exs.P.1 and P.2, authorisation and Certificate of Incorporation of the company, respectively, are common, other exhibits are depending upon the number of cheques for invoices and dishonour Memos i.e., where there is a single cheque for single invoice with dishonour Memo, exhibited as Exs.P.3 to P.5, respectively, and if there are 3 cheques for 3 invoices with 3 dishonoured Memos, exhibited as Exs.P.3 to P.11, respectively, and therefrom the other 5 documents with continuation number for the notice with acknowledgement and certificate of posting as well as reply and account copy, either as Exs.P.6 to P.10 or as Exs.P.12 to P.16, respectively. It is after said evidence of complainant, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by bringing to their notice the incriminating material against them and from recording their answers in pleading innocence, reiterating their defence version of nothing due to pay to honour the cheques