IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1100 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Sun Son Industries … APPELLANT And Kunnapa Reddy Venkateswara Rao and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1100 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. The unsuccessful complainant seeks to file appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent No.1 of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (in short, the Act) by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.125 of 2009. 2. According to the complainant, he lent Rs.50,000/- to the accused in June, 2007 and that towards repayment of the said debt, the accused issued Ex.P-1 - cheque for Rs.50,000/- and it was dishonoured as per Ex.P-2 - dishonour memo, when it was presented in bank for encashment. It appears that unconnected office copy of legal notice was marked as Ex.P-3 herein out of confusion, because the complainant filed three cases simultaneously. 3. As per the complainant's case, it was the accused, Kunnappa Reddy Venkateshwar Rao, who borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- from him. There is no dispute that Ex.P-1 - cheque was drawn on account of M/s. Omkar Engineering Works. Simply because the accused was proprietor of M/s. Omkar Engineering Works and he signed the cheque as such, it will not clothe him with liability much less criminal liability, in case the said cheque is dishonoured. Drawer of the cheque, namely, M/s. Omkar Engineering Works, is not the accused. Further, the alleged debt of Rs.50,000/- is owed by the accused, Kunnappa Reddy Venkateshwar Rao, and not by M/s. Omkar Engineering Works. Therefore, there is no legally enforceable debt supporting Ex.P-1, cheque. The accused was impleaded in his personal capacity in the complaint. The accused did not draw Ex.P-1 - cheque on his personal account. Therefore, in case Ex.P-1 - cheque is dishonoured, it will not mulct the accused with liability under Section 138 of the Act. The lower Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 27, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1100 OF 2010 July 27, 2010