Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—The complainant filed this appeal questioning order of acquittal of the accused recorded by the lower Court of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The complainant PW1 filed the complaint in the lower Court on the ground that Ex. P1 cheque for Rs. 1,30,000 drawn by the accused in his favour was dishonoured as per Exs. P2 and P3 memos by the banker for want of ‘sufficient funds’ in the amount of the accused. After issuing requisite notice under Ex P4 by way of courier service, the complainant filed the complaint in the lower Court. The lower Court recorded acquittal on four grounds namely (1) that Ex P1 cheque was not drawn towards discharge of any debt or liability, (2) that Ex P1 cheque was drawn by the accused as proprietory of Srividya Suppliers and Contractors and on account of said proprietary concern and therefore the complaint should have been filed impleading the proprietary concern as one of the accused, (3) that there is no proof of service of notice on the accused prior to filing of the complaint, and (4) that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is contended by the appellant’s couns