JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The appellant - complainant has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused - respondent for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. 3. It is the case of complainant that on 17/6/2013 complainant sanctioned a loan of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 to the accused for the purpose construction of a school building. At the time of transaction of loan, the accused agreed to the terms and conditions and issued a cheque bearing No.277699 duly signed by him. Since, accused did not repay the loan amount, the complainant in the last week of October requested him to pay the amount within fifteen days and waited for the response. Since, the accused did not make the payment, he presented the cheque for encashment to his banker, but it was dishonored on 14/11/2013 for insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued and in spite of receipt of the same, the accused did not reply to the said legal notice and also did not pay the amount mentioned in the cheque and therefore, committed an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only ground on which the Trial Court has acquitted the accused is that there was no proper authority for the complainant - PW.1 to file the complaint. He submits that complainant is a Firm having its partners and in Ex.P.12 it is clearly stated that one Sri. Srikanth S. Shetty and Sri. Gurushantayya S. Swamy, the Managing Partners are authorized by the partners to represent the Firm in all legal proceedings and deal with money lending business etc., Therefore, he contends that one of them will be authorized to file a complaint. He contends that, complainant has placed sufficient material to show that loan of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 was sanctioned to the accused and same is reflected in Ex.P.11 - statement of account maintained by the Firm as well as Exs.P.5 to 10 - documents pertaining to the loan transaction. He contends that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to acquit the accused are not in accordance with law. 5. He contends that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to acquit the accused are not in accordance with law. 5. According to complainant - Firm on 17/6/2013, a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 was sanctioned to the accused and in discharge of the said liability, the accused issued the cheque in question. From the evidence led by the complainant it can be seen that while sanctioning the loan amount itself, the accused issued the cheque i.e., Ex.P.1. The loan was sanction on 17/6/2013, but the cheque is dtd. 13/11/2013 which is not explained by PW.1 in his evidence. Secondly, Ex.P.11 the statement of account of complainant - Firm shows that on 17/6/2011 there was a transaction in respect of Rs.1, 50, 000.00, which according to the complainant is the date of loan sanctioned to the accused. It is the specific case of the complainant that the loan was sanctioned on 17/6/2013 and it is not on 17/6/2011. Further in the cross-examination of PW.1, he has admitted that after availing loan and before issuance of the cheque that is Ex.P.1 the accused has repaid a sum of Rs.48, 000.00 towards interest and thereafter the accused paid only interest and did not pay the principal amount. Such admission by the complainant would show that accused had paid some amount after he availed loan from the complainant - Firm. It is not stated either in the legal notice or in the complaint. It is not forthcoming as to what was the interest payable. The complainant has also not furnished the details of payment made and also the balance payable by the accused. If that is the case, it cannot be said that a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 was due by the accused to the complainant. When the complainant has categorically admitted that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.48, 000.00, then it cannot be said that cheque was issued in respect of a legally dischargeable debt in a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00. 6. When the complainant has categorically admitted that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.48, 000.00, then it cannot be said that cheque was issued in respect of a legally dischargeable debt in a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00. 6. The Trial Court relying on Ex.P.12, wherein the names of two persons are shown as Managing partners who are authorized by the partners to represent the Firm in all legal proceedings, observed that in the present case the complaint is filed by only one of the partner and further observed that execution of power of attorney in favour of two or more persons jointly is not valid as per law. Even though the Trial Court has not discussed the evidence adduced in this case, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, this Court finds that the complainant has failed to establish that there was a legally recoverable debt of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 from the accused. The complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the order of acquittal. Appeal is dismissed.