ORDER :

P. Keshava Rao, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2009 dated 26.10.2009 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, confirming the judgment in C.C. No. 184 of 2000 in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint against the petitioner vide C.C. No. 184 of 2000 stating that the petitioner herein and his wife borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- through cheque No. 015352 drawn on Indian Bank, Gujjanagundla, dated 30.11.1994 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. with yearly rests. Later when respondent No. 2 demanded for refund of the said amount, the petitioner gave cheque bearing No. 671049 drawn on State Bank of India, Guntur, dated 30.10.1999 for Rs. 4,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards part payment. When respondent No. 2 presented the said cheque for realization in his bank i.e., Bank of Baroda on 18.11.1999, it was dishonoured on 25.11.1999 with an endorsement, "insufficient funds" in the account of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, after complying with the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, such as issuance of legal notice etc., filed the above said complaint. After the petitioner appeared in the above said Calendar Case, in compliance with the procedure under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the petitioner was furnished with the copies of the complaint and the material enclosed thereto. On examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, respondent No. 2 examined PW 1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8 on its behalf. After closure of the evidence of respondent No. 2, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by informing about the incriminating evidence brought on record against him, which, he denied and reported no evidence. The learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, after hearing both the parties and analyzing the evidence brought on record, by judgment dated 5.1.2009, sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 26.10.2009, confirming the judgment of the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the Courts below committed a material irregularity in sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act since the complaint itself is not maintainable in law since respondent No. 2 got filed the complaint through a power of attorney holder. He also contended that as per Order 30 CPC even in the case of a proprietary concern where a single person carries on business in the name and style other than his own name, he can sue or be sued and the same analogy can be drawn in the absence of specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Respondent No. 2 failed to examine the bank officials and, therefore, the conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of respondent No. 2. Both the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment and contended that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by both the Courts below.

6. L