P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Smt. Manjula, representing Sri Hanumantha Rao, counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahadeva, representing Sri Krishna Murthy, counsel representing the respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The complainant in C.C.No. 812 of 1995 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad preferred the present criminal appeal as against the Order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate in the said C.C. No. 812 of 1995 by the Judgment dated 9-7-1998.

3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant supplied G.I. Indian Gold tubes to the respondents 1 and 2 worth Rs. 3,10,571/- and against the said outstanding amount of Rs. 3,10,571/-, A-2 made cash payments and accused No. 1 issued three cheques for Rs. 50,000/- each dated 13-4-1995, 20-4-1995 and 24-4-1995 and A-1 had honoured cheque No. 1133253 dated 13-4-1995, but other two cheques dated 19-4-1995 and 22-4-1995 bearing Nos. 1133254 and 1133257 were dishonoured. Then the accused paid Rs. 1,35,571/- to the complainant on various dates. The complainant presented the said two cheques bearing Nos. 1133254 and 1133257 dated 19-4-1995 and 22-4-1995 for Rs. 50,000/- each and the same were returned with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Then the complainant issued a legal notice dated 08-9-1995 and the same had been acknowledged by the accused, but failed to pay the amount. Hence, the accused are liable to be punished under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’). The complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Exs. P-1 to P-15 were marked. On appreciation of evidence, an Order of acquittal had been recorded, hence the criminal appeal.

4. Smt. Manjula, representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court to different provisions of the Act and pointed out to the presumption available under Section 139 of the act and would contend that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence placed on behalf of the accused, the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the Act and acquittal recoded is bad in law. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Viadhyan Balan and another1 and Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee2.

5. The learned Counsel had taken this court through the evidence of P.W. 1 and would submit that the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate on the ground that P.W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that the ink used for signatures in Exs. P-1 and P-2 cheques is different with the ink used to fill the contents therein and drawing inference therefrom that Exs. P-1 and P-2 were blank cheques, cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of accused, especially in the light of Section 139 of the Act.

6. Per contra, Sri Mahadeva, learned counsel representing R-1, R-2-accused would contend that this is an appeal against acquittal and unless the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate are shown to be either perverse or unreasonable, normally, such findings need not be disturbed in an appeal. The learned counsel placed strong reliance in C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair3 and Atluri Usha Swamy v. Vijay Presgtessed Products (P) Limited and others4. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the other findings recorded to the effect that P.W. 1 is not having any record to show that M/s. Sony Engineering Works, represented by A-1 and M/s. Sony Tubes Syndicate, represented by A-2 are sister concerns. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the findings recorded in relation to Exs. P-1 and P-2 cheques, the signatures thereon and the ink in filling up the contents and the other relevant aspects at paras 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Judgment and would contend that in view of the fact that the prosecution was unable to establish legally enforceable debt, there is no question of drawing any presumption under Section 139 of the Act and hence the acquittal recorded