( 1 ) AS the point involved and the parties in all the Criminal Appeals are one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against separate judgments dated 28. 2. 2001 delivered in various Calendar Cases, by which, the learned xxiii Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, found the accused-respondent not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1882 (for short "the Act" ). Brief facts of the case are that the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- to purchase CEILO gle MT CAR under Hire Purchase Scheme and agreed to repay the loan with interest in 24 equal monthly instalments. In pursuance of the same, the accused, being the proprietor of the Noble Travels, Afzalgunj, hyderabad, executed Hire Purchase Agreement and relevant documents with the complainant and issued ten cheques bearing No. 704024, dated 4. 3. 1998, No. 704025, dated 4. 4. 19918, No. 704026, dated 4. 5. 1998, no. 704027, dated 4. 6. 1998, No. 704028, dated 4. 7. 1998, No. 704030, dated 4. 9. 1998, No. 704031, dated 4. 10. 1998, No. 704032, dated 4. 11. 1998, No. 704033, dated 4. 12. 1998 and No. 704034, dated 4. 1. 1999 for Rs. 22,123/- each respectively. When these cheques were presented in the bank, they were returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Then, the complainant, sent a legal notice to the business place of the accused, but it was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "refused" and the notice which was sent to his house address was also returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "addressee Out of station, Addressee Continuously 7 days Absent". Hence, after following the procedure prescribed under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant filed complaints, which were numbered as C. C. Nos. 1015, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, 2253, 2254, 2255 of 1998, 187 and 315 of 1999. The learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on trial, found the accused-respondent not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him. As stated supra, against the judgments dated 28. 2. 2001 delivered in these Calendar Cases, the ten criminal Appeals are preferred. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the case as pleaded in Crl. As stated supra, against the judgments dated 28. 2. 2001 delivered in these Calendar Cases, the ten criminal Appeals are preferred. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the case as pleaded in Crl. A. No. 845 of 2001 shall be referred to. Originally, one Sri T. V. Rajeevan, learned counsel, was appearing for the accused-respondent. However, when these matters came up for hearing before me, he reported no instructions, and hence, it necessitated this Court to direct the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant to send notice to the respondent. The notice, which was sent by the learned counsel for the complainant, was returned unserved, and hence, on 28. 8. 2006, this Court directed the learned counsel for the complainant to take out notice to the accused through substitute service. Pursuant to which, the learned counsel filed proof of service establishing the fact that the notice was published in "deccan Chronicle" on 2. 10. 2006. In spite of this fact, the accused has not chosen put in appearance either in person or through his counsel, and hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of these appeals after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant. Heard Sri M. S. N. Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the complainant has strenuously contended that the learned Magistrate gave erroneous findings on three untenable grounds and ultimately found the accused not guilty of the alleged offence. His first contention is that the name of the complainant described on the Certificate of Incorporation, dated 20. 10. 1986 i. e. Ex. P9 and the Board Resolution dated 4. 9. 1997 i. e. Ex. P10, is Mafatlal Finance company Limited, but not Mafatlal Finance Company Private Limited. His second contention is that in view of Section 27 of the General Clauses act, 1897, notice shall be deemed to have been served on the accused. His third contention is that there is a legally enforceable debt by the complainant against the accused as the vehicle bearing No. AP9v 4847 was delivered by the complainant to the accused. ( 5 ) IN order to substantiate the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, this Court feels it necessary to go through the material placed on record. So far as the first contention is concerned, though the name of the complainant in Ex. ( 5 ) IN order to substantiate the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, this Court feels it necessary to go through the material placed on record. So far as the first contention is concerned, though the name of the complainant in Ex. P9, Certificate of Incorporation, is mentioned as Mafatlal Finance Company Private Limited, the word private is clearly struck off and an endorsement, to that effect, is made on it and there is also certification that it is a Limited Company. Ex. PIO, board Resolution, also clearly depicts the name of the complainant as mafatlal Finance Company Limited, but not Mafatlal Finance Company private Limited. Hence, the finding arrived at by the trial Court that there is no evidence to show that Mafatlal Finance Company Limited and mafatlal Finance Company Private Limited are one and the same, and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable, is incorrect. With regard to his second contention, the postal cover i. e. Ex. P7 containing notice, which was sent to the business place of the accused, was returned with an endorsement "refused" made by the postal authorities on 21. 12. 1998 and another postal cover i. e. Ex. P8 containing notice, which was sent to residential address of the accused, was also returned with an endorsement "addressee Out of Station, Addressee continuously 7 Days Absent" made by the postal authorities on 28. 12. 1999. When the notice, which was sent, was returned with these endorsements, it shall be deemed that the service of notice was effected on the accused in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, but the view taken by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad that the complainant has not examined anybody from the postal Department to prove that the notice was served, is perverse, because once the service of notice is established according to the provisions of law, the complainant need not examine anybody to that effect. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the final contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that out of the total number of cheques issued in the same course of transaction in discharge of debt, two cheques bearing nos. 704021, dated 4. 12. 1997 and 704022, dated 4. 1. 1998 for Rs. 22,123/-each, were honoured. ( 6 ) WITH regard to the final contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that out of the total number of cheques issued in the same course of transaction in discharge of debt, two cheques bearing nos. 704021, dated 4. 12. 1997 and 704022, dated 4. 1. 1998 for Rs. 22,123/-each, were honoured. When the complainant has discharged the burden of proof that two cheques were honoured, and the remaining were dishonoured, then presumption can be drawn under Section 139 of the Act that the holder of the cheques in question i. e. the complainant received the cheques from the accused for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability. The presumption, being rebuttal, the burden of proving that the cheques in question had not been issued for discharge of a debt or liability, is on the accused. In the instant case, nobody was examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of the accused to establish that the cheques in question were not issued and even if issued, they were not for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. This amply justifies that there is absolutely a legally enforceable debt: between the parities. Further, the hire Purchase Agreement dated 4. 11. 1997 i. e. Ex. P15, Demand promissory Note dated 4. 11. 1997 i. e. Ex. P16, Invoice dated 30. 11. 1997 i. e. Ex. P18, Sale Certificate dated 30. 11. 1997 i. e. Ex. P19 and R. C. Book, dated 30. 12. 2000 i. e. Ex. P21 clearly show that the accused executed these documents, which bear his name and signature. Particularly, ex. P18, Invoice and Ex. P19, Sale Certificate, which were issued by hyderabad Auto Service Private Limited, in favour of the accused, clearly signify that the vehicle bearing No. AP9v 4847 was delivered to the accused. Moreover, in column No. 18 of Ex. P21 i. e. R. C. Book, it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle was delivered under Hire Purchase Agreement to the complainant. When there isi preponderance of evidence, the observation made by the learned Magistrate that the complainant did not examine anybody from A. P. Transport Department to prove the transaction of delivery of the vehicle to the accused, and there is no legally enforceable debt, is baseless. When there isi preponderance of evidence, the observation made by the learned Magistrate that the complainant did not examine anybody from A. P. Transport Department to prove the transaction of delivery of the vehicle to the accused, and there is no legally enforceable debt, is baseless. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the view that the judgments impugned in these Criminal Appeals suffer from serious legal infirmities which are apparent on the face of the record and they are liable to be set aside, and accordingly, they are set aside. In the result, these Criminall Appeals are allowed and the accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentence imposed in all the appeals shall run concurrently.