P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri D. V. N. Acharya, Counsel representing the appellant, Sri Mohd. Osman shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor and also Sri B. P. Raju, counsel representing R-1 and R-2. ( 2 ) SRI D. V. N. Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that there is no controversy relating to the fact that A-2 had issued the cheques exs. P-3 and P-4. The learned counsel also would submit that there is no serious controversy relating to Exs. P-1 and P-2, the promissory notes executed by the accused. The counsel also would submit that it is no doubt true A-1 had not issued any cheque to appellant-complainant. However, the counsel would submit that as far as A-2 is concerned, acquittal was recorded on the ground that the complainant had no authorization to represent the complainant/registered partnership firm. This approach of the learned II Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class of Eluru is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The counsel also placed reliance on Geekayexim (India) Ltd. , and others v. State of Gujarat and another. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor wound contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, recording acquittal on the ground that complaint is not maintainable as against A-2 also on the ground of want of authorization to represent the partnership firm, especially in the light of the fact that P. W. 1 is the Managing partner, cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri B. P. Raju, learned counsel representing R-1 and R-2-A-1 and a-2 would submit that A-1 did not issue any cheque at all to the complainant and hence the very taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act itself is illegal. Hence, the learned Magistrate had recorded reasons while recording an acquittal as against A-1, which cannot be disturbed. The counsel also pointed out that a finding had been recorded that in view of the fact that Exs. P-1 and P-2 were still in force and were legally enforceable as on the said dates, the contention of the accused that there is no legally enforceable debt, cannot be sustained. This view, expressed by the learned Magistrate, also cannot be sustained forthe reason that except the evidence of P. W. 1 there is no other evidence in relation to proof of Exs. P-1 and p-2. This view, expressed by the learned Magistrate, also cannot be sustained forthe reason that except the evidence of P. W. 1 there is no other evidence in relation to proof of Exs. P-1 and p-2. Hence, the said finding also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would further contend that apart from this aspect of the matter, since the authority of P. W. 1 to represent the partnership firm is itself doubtful, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable as against A-2 also and recorded an acquittal and hence the findings are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD the counsel on record. ( 6 ) THE appellant-complainant Sri Vasavi chit funds, Eluru, represented by its Managing partner had filed the complaint as against a-1 and A-2 under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). The case of the prosecution is that on 0/-12-1993 both the accused executed a promissory note for Rs. 27,000/- in favour of the complainant-firm in respect of amount due by them. On the demand by the complainant, the second accused gave him three different cheques for Rs. 3,000/-, rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively with dates 15-4-1995, 15-6-1995 and 15-8-1995 and the said cheques were issued in the presence of A-1 at their residence at Eluru and they were drawn on Vysya Bank, hyderabad branch. After receiving the three cheques, the complainant presented them for collection through Bank of India, eluru on 21-8-1995. They were returned on 01 -9-1995 as unpaid due to insufficient funds in the bank account of A-2. On 14-9-1995 the complainant got issued a registered legal notice to both the accused calling upon them to pay the cheque amounts. On 15-9-1995 both the accused received the notices, but failed to pay the said amounts. ( 7 ) IN support of the prosecution, P. W. 1 wasexamined, Exs. P-1 to P-10 were marked. ( 8 ) IT is not in controversy that A-1 had not issued any cheque and hence a findings had been recorded that taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Act itself is illegal. In the light of the said finding the complaint filed as against A-1 is not maintainable and accordingly the said finding is hereby confirmed. In the light of the said finding the complaint filed as against A-1 is not maintainable and accordingly the said finding is hereby confirmed. ( 9 ) AS far as A-2 is concerned the learned magistrate, on the strength of Exs. P-1 and p-2, came to the conclusion that there is a legally enforceable debt. No doubt, the said finding recorded by the learned Magistrate being an adverse finding to the accused, the learned counsel representing the accused had controverted the same before this Court, be that as it may, as far as A-2 is concerned, acquittal had been recorded mainly on the ground that the complainant had no authorization to represent the registered partnership firm. ( 10 ) ON careful scrutiny of the findings recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that except the evidence of P. W. 1 there is no other evidence available on record even for establishing the legally enforceable debt. In view of the fact that as against A-2 the complaint was held to be not maintainable forwan to fauthorization to P. W. 1 torepresent the registered partnership firm, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said reason is not a sustainable reason and hence the acquittal recorded as against R-1 -A-2 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the II additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, eluru to afford opportunity to both the parties appellant-complainant and also R-2-A-2 to let in further evidence in all the aspects, inclusive of the legally enforceable debt, and dispose of the same is accordance with law. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above so far as it relates to R-2-A-2. As far as acquittal recorded as against R-1-A-1 is concerned the same is hereby confirmed.