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.
