MEDIA EXEMPLERS, ADVERTISING AND MARKETING CONSULTANTS Vs. THE MADRAS ADVERTISING CO. LTD., ANNA SALAI MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners in these two Criminal Revision Petitions are accused Nos.1 and 2 out of the three accused arrayed in C.C.No.71 of 1997 and C.C.No.72 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The said matters arose out of two complaints filed by the first respondent/complainant alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the complaints were jointly tried.

(2.) The specific case of the complainant is to the effect that for a total liability of Rs. 3,60,111/- owed by the accused persons to the complainant Company, the accused had issued Exhibit P3 cheque dated 20.10.1994 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Exhibit P4 cheque dated 20.12.1994 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn from the account of accused No.1 partnership firm, executed and signed by accused No.2 (Managing Partner of A1 firm) and accused No.3 (partner of A1 firm) and the cheques when presented for collection resulted in dishonour. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sought to be prosecuted in view of the corporate vicarious liability as envisaged in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the joint trial, the trial court, as per the common judgment dated 6.10.2001 in C.C.No.71 of 97 has convicted all the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has sentenced accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 55,000/- each with a default sentence clause of one month simple imprisonment for each of the said two accused. Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs. 53,000/- each was directed to be disbursed as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Since accused No.1 is a partnership firm, no separate sentence was awarded to A1 firm. As per the said common judgment rendered on 6.10.2001, the trial court in C.C.No.72 of 1997 has also convicted all the three accused for the above said offence and has sentenced A2 and A3 to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay Rs. 55,000/- each with a default sentence clause of simple imprisonment for one month for each of the said two accused and from the said fine amount so realised, an amount of Rs. 53,000/- was directed to be disbursed as compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded to A1 partnership firm in C.C.No.72 of 1997 as well.

(3.) Accused Nos.1 and 2 had jointly preferred two Criminal Appeals for challenging the judgments in these two complaints and it also appears that accused No.3 had also preferred the separate Criminal Appeals for challenging the common judgment of conviction to the extent it affected him. Thus four Criminal Appeals were so filed before the appellate court concerned [Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam] as Criminal Appeal No.758, 759, 807 and 808 of 2001. The appellate court, as per the common judgment rendered on 11.4.2003, has elaborately re-appraised the entire evidence and has dismissed all the said four Criminal Appeals filed by the respective accused, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court imposed in this case.