blank, the question of invoking Section 138 of the Act does not arise. Apart from the said ground, the complaint deserved dismissal on legal ground that drawer of cheque Ex.P.14 is not the accused in his individual capacity. Ex.P.14 was drawn by the accused as Managing Partner of Sri Vishnu Enterprises by affixing rubber stamp of Sri Vishnu Enterprises on the cheque. Thus, the cheque was drawn on account of Sri Vishnu Enterprises and not on account of the accused. No doubt, the accused may be Managing Partner of Sri Vishnu Enterprises. But, personal account of the accused in the bank is entirely different from account of Sri Vishnu Enterprises in the bank. Even though drawer of the cheque is Sri Vishnu Enterprises, the said partnership firm, namely, Sri Vishnu Enterprises is not impleaded as accused in the present case. Sri Vishnu Enterprises is not the chit subscriber with the complainant much less withdrew prized chit amounts in three chits. It was the accused alone in his individual capacity who became a member of the chit and became prized subscriber and withdrew prized chit amounts from the complainant. Therefore, it has to be held that the accused is not drawer of the dishonoured cheque Ex.P.14. For Ex.P.14-dishonoured cheque, there is no legally enforceable debt backing the same. After Ex.P.14-cheque was dishonoured, the complainant did not give any notice to the drawer of the cheque, namely, Sri Vishnu Enterprises. Thus, viewed from any angle, the accused in his individual capacity did not draw the cheque and did not commit the offence under Section 138 of the Act in order to find him guilty of the same. The conclusion arrived at by the lower Court and acquittal passed by the lower Court are not liable to be disturbed in this appeal.
