JUDGMENT :

In the complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the present respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `N.I.Act’), the learned XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court’), in C.C.No.5779/2017 pronounced the judgment of acquittal on 22.02.2018. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that it is a partnership firm. Towards the discharge of his liability, the accused had issued to it a cheque bearing No.154377 dated 03.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/drawn on M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant to its Banker for its realisation, the same came to be dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ with a memo dated 31.12.2016. The complainant was informed about the same from its Banker on 02.01.2017. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of issuance of notice which was dated 04.01.2017. Despite receipt of notice, the accused did not make any payment of the amount covered under the cheque. Thus, it constrained the complainant to file a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. To prove its case, the complainant got examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P8. From the accused side, accused himself was examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 and D1(a) were marked. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 22.02.2018, acquitted the accused of the alleged offence. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

5. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court even after holding that the complainant has proved that the accused has issued a cheque at Ex.P2 towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and that on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured for the reasons “funds insufficient” and also even after holding that the demand made by the complainant against the accused for payment of the cheque amount was also not met by the accused, had erroneously held that merely because the complainant Firm was shown to be an unregistered Firm and that the person who has filed the complaint being a General Power of Attorney Holder, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence. Relying upon some reported judgments, which will be discussed at an appropriate stage hereafterwards, the learned counsel submitted that the said finding of the trial Court deserves to be setaside and the accused is liable to be convicted for the alleged offence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the finding of the Court below that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and that for the disnonour of the said cheque with a reason “funds insufficient”, and also that the complainant within time had also issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, he contended that the finding of the Court below that an unregistered Firm cannot file a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and that the General Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant has not asserted about his personal knowledge in respect of the transaction, as such, he could not maintain the complaint, does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the very