JUDGMENT :

B.A. PATIL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the XXXIII Additional CMM, Bengalauru City (SCCH-5) in C.C. No. 35679/2010, dated 21.10.2017.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the third respondent has remained absent. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served, they have not put in their appearance.

3. The case of the complainant before the trial Court is that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were administering accused No.1-Committee under the name and style "M/s.Paralympic Committee of India. Accused No.2 was the President and accused No.3 was the Treasurer and they were authorized signatories. The complainant is a renowned hotel under the name and style "The Chancery Pavilion" an Unit of M/s.Hyagreeva Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, Bengaluru. In relation to the transaction concerning the payment of hotel bills towards room rents, room services, etc. and other incidental services rendered by the complainant-Hotel to the accused and its guests, accused became due and liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs and towards payment of the said amount, a cheque bearing No.543429, dated 2.12.2009 was issued and when the said cheque was presented through its banker, the same was dishonored for 'insufficient funds' and thereafter on 4.3.2010 a legal notice came to be issued by the complainant to the accused. Accused neither paid the amount nor given any reply and as such the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (Act' for short) was filed.

4. In order to prove its case, the complainant-Hotel got examined the General Power of Attorney, the authorized representative of the complainant-Hotel as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1-P200. On behalf of the accused, accused Nos.2 and 3 were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and no documents were marked on their behalf. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court has passed the impugned order acquitting the accused. As against the said order of acquittal, the complainant is before this Court.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that the trial Court without application of its judicial mind only by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2015 AIR SCW 1125 has come to a wrong conclusion holding that the authorized representative is not having any personal knowledge about the transaction in question and therefore he cannot be examined as a witness and his evidence cannot be relied upon to substantiate the case of the complainant. It is his further submission that burden is on PW.1 to prove that he is aware of the transaction which has been taken place between the complainant and the accused. Relying upon the said facts and circumstances, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. He further submitted that while acquitting the accused, the other evidence, documents produced and presumption in law have not been appreciated by the trial Court. As per Section 139 of the Act, if accused admits his signature on the cheque, the initial presumption has to be drawn that the said cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability. Thereafter, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the said presumption on preponderance of probabilities. Without considering the said aspect, the impugned order came to be passed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it is clear that the complainant has got examined the authorized representative as PW.1. But when accused No.2 was got examined as DW.1, he has admitted the signature on the cheque at Ex.P1. However, he has not specifically stated as to where and for which purpose the said cheque has been issued and how the said cheque has reached the comp