SHIBY POLY Vs. RANK ADVERTISING CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment of the Court of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam (Appellate Court) in Crl.Appeal No.107/2010, which in turn confirmed the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.IV, Ernakulam (Trial Court) in S.T.No.5/2009, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, 'N.I.Act'). The revision petitioner was the 3rd accused and the 1st respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court. The parties, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per the status before the Trial Court. The facts in brief:

(2.) The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused (1st accused firm and its two partners-accused 2 and 3) alleging them to have committed the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. The case of the complainant was that it is an accredited agency of Indian Newspaper Society. The accused used to authorise the complainant to publish its advertisements in various dailies and newspapers. In discharge of the liability of the 1st accused company, the accused 2 and 3 had issued Ext.P8 cheque for an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00. The cheque, on presentation to the bank for collection, was returned by Ext.P9 memorandum due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the 1st accused company. Although the complainant issued Exts.P11 to P13 statutory lawyer notices to the accused, they refused to pay the demanded amount. Hence, the accused have committed the offences under Ss. 138 and 142 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) The 1st accused company did not appear through any representative and the 2nd accused was reported to be in a comatose state. Therefore, the case against them was split up and the Trial Court proceeded with the trial against the 3rd accused. The 3rd accused pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read against her. Trial