The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant regarding legally enforceable debt remains unless the accused proves otherwise.

1. This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 2-4-1997 passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C. No. 321 of 1995.

2. The complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the N.I. Act"). The Court below, on evidence, found the accused not guilty of the said offence and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the order of acquittal, the complainant had preferred this appeal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a company and it has been carrying on with the business of manufacturing and selling of prawn feed under the brand name "Luxe Water Base" and the accused is the distributor of the appellant in East Godavari District. During the said transaction, the accused fell due to a sum of Rs. 1,55,87,952/- and in due discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 26-1-1995 drawn on the Corporation Bank, Kakinada for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque on 27-1-1995 and the same was returned for want of sufficient funds and this fact was intimated to the accused. At the request of the accused, the said cheque was represented on three more occasions i.e., on 2-2-1995, 8-2-1995 and on 6-7-1995. Even on these three occasions also, the said cheque meet with the same situation. Therefore, the complainant got issued a registered notice dated 12-7-1995 and the accused received the same on 15-7-1997, but he failed to reply. Hence Sri S. Santhanaraman, Assistant Manager, Credit Control, representing the company, filed the present complaint.

4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exts. P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined, except marking Exts. D1 to D7.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence while ordering acquittal gave three findings in favour of the accused viz., that the complainant failed to prove the legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused; that the notice issued to the accused is not a valid notice and; that the Assistant Manager, Credit Control who filed the complaint representing the company has no valid authorization as contemplated under S.141 of N.I. Act to file the complaint.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant appellant raised four contentions. Firstly, that the trial Court is in error in holding that the complainant did not discharge his burden in proving that there was legally enforceable debt. Secondly; that the trial Court is in error in holding that the notice sent to the accused is not a valid service. Thirdly, that the Assistant Manager who filed the present complaint was authorized by the Chief Executive of the Company under Ext. P7 and basing on such authorization, the Assistant Manager, Credit Control Sri S. Santhanaraman (PW 1) filed the present complaint. He submitted that even otherwise since PW 1 is connected with the affairs of the company, without the authorization he can file the complaint. He further submitted that even assuming that there is no authorization, the Assistant Manager being the employee of the company is entitled to file the complaint on behalf of the company as an agent since the cheque issued by the debtor to discharge his liability to the company, when presented, was returned owing to lack of sufficient funds.

7. Lastly he contended that even assuming that accused paid certain amounts under Exts. D3 to D6 to the company, since the accused was indebted to the company to a total sum of Rs. 1,55,87,922/- and since under the said documents, no details were given by the accused i.e., to which account