Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal assailing the acquittal judgment, dated 21.03.2007, passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in S.T.C. No. 474 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'N.I. Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant entity is represented by its Authorized Signatory covered by Ex. P.1 Board Resolution, dated 10.01.2006, modified by the earlier authorization of the Board, dated 21.04.2005 in favour of one Sri P. Ekambara Rao. The accused was running the business in the name and style of Dhanastra Capital Limited and approached the complainant to provide foreign funding for the Mini Power Project in Andhra Pradesh and compelled to part with Rs. 35,00,000/- for so providing. In good faith by accepting the proposal of the accused, the complainant deposited the said amount. However, the accused failed to provide the foreign fund by committing breach of trust and started giving evasive replies to refund the amount. After repeated demands, by saying that the entity of accused was in crisis after expiry of his father, who was Managing Director of Dhanastra Capital Limited, came for negotiations and agreed to settle the issue to refund of Rs. 25,00,000/- instead of Rs. 35,00,000/- and executed Ex. P.2 undertaking letter, dated 20.11.2004 and issued five post dated cheques promising to discharge the liability in due course. Ex. P.3 cheque bearing No. 270363, dated 31.05.2005 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn at H.S.B.G., Andheri, West Mumbai is one of the five cheques. When it was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement payment stopped by the drawer along with Ex. P.4 bankers memo dated 03.06.2005, which made the complainant to issue Ex. P.5 statutory notice, dated 22.06.2005. Exs. P.6 and P.7 are registered postal receipt and certificate of posting acknowledged by accused under Ex. P.8 and the accused issued Ex. P.9 reply dated 14.05.2005 (though there is a statement in the complaint as if no reply was given the same was exhibited in the evidence of complainant P.W. 1), but no payment was made. Hence the complaint.

3. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken cognizance; when the accused who appeared before the Court pursuant to the summons and after supply of case copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, "Cr.P.C"), was questioned on substance of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P. 11. On behalf of the defence, the accused himself was examined as D.W. 1 and got marked Exs. D.1 and D.2.

5. After completion of the evidence on the side of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material put to him.

6. After appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the complainant failed to prove the allegation levelled against the accused and acquitted him. Impugning the same, the complainant preferred the present appeal.

7. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are that the lower Court's acquittal judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; and the Court below went wrong in dismissing the complaint with no basis and hence to allow the appeal by setting aside the acquittal judgment of the lower Court and to punish the accused according to law.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, on the other hand, represents that the lower Court on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence arrived at right conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and found the accused