JUDGMENT :

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.902 of 2014, 904 of 2014 and 905 of 2014

These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgments dated 10.07.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.251 of 2010, 250 of 2010 and 252 of 2010, all on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where under the findings of conviction and sentence imposed against the 1^st respondent/accused No.3 vide judgments dated 06.07.2010 passed in CC Nos.587 of 2009, 583 of 2009 and 585 of 2009 by the learned XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad were set aside founding the 1st respondent/accused No.3 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. In all three appeals, this Court heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pappu, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri YV Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel representing Sri YV Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the 2^nd respondent/State.

3. Since the parties to all these criminal appeals are one and the same, these three appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. As seen from the record, the 1st respondent/complaint lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., requesting to take appropriate action against the accused under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the accused No.1 company viz. M/s.You One Maharia (JV), to which one Vinod Goel/A2 was the Managing Director and PM Kumar/A3 the 1st respondent herein was the Executive Director, was awarded a contract work for construction of a portion of National Highway No.7 and in that process, by placing purchase order dated 03.03.2004, under 13 invoices from 04.03.2004 to 12.07.2004, it took TMT rods amounting to Rs.55,14,363/- and in lieu of discharge of the said debt, on behalf of accused No.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 issued cheque bearing Nos.704140 dated 08.04.2004 for Rs.8,87,382/-, 704139 dated 12.08.2004 for Rs.7,50,000/- and 894767 dated 15.07.2004 for Rs.38,76,981/- and that on presentation, the said cheques were returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of A1 and in-spite of receipt of legal notice, the accused failed either to repay the amounts covered under the cheques or to give any reply.

5. The trial Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act against the accused and after completing all the procedural formalities, proceeded with trial. During the course of trial, on behalf of the 1^st respondent/complainant, its Director viz. Anil Kumar Kedia was examined as PW1 and its Manager viz. Abraham as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 in all the cases.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, since accused No.2 did not appear before the trial Court, the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was split-up and the present case was proceeded further against the accused No.3/the 1^st respondent herein.

7. The 1^st respondent/A3 denied the case of the prosecution mainly contending that he was not the Executive Director of A1 and that he is only an employee and hence, he is not liable to be prosecuted. Further, prosecution of A3, without A1 company, has no validity. In support of his defence, in CC Nos.250 of 2010 and 251 of 2010, he got examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.D1/GPA in his favour.

8. The trial Court, found the 1^st respondent/A3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act holding that having admitted his position in A1 company as Executive Director by virtue of Ex.D1/GPA and his evidence as DW1 and also his signatures on the subject cheques along with A2, A3 cannot disown his liability, the subject cheques were issued in lieu of a legally enforceable debt, in- spite of receipt of statutory notice A3 kept quiet, and splitting up of case against A1 and A2 cannot take away the case completely against them. Accordi