P.D. Waingankar, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 03.01.2007 in Cri. A. No. 15040/2002 on the file of the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2002 in C.C. Nos. 22939/1996, 22940/1996 and 22941/1996 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner-M/s. Savik Vijay Engineering Pvt. Ltd., purchased certain Cooling Systems from M/s. Vijay Hydraulics. The respondent-M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd., is the financier for the purchase of Cooling Systems. The purchases were made under Hire Purchase Agreement by the petitioners with the respondent. The amount financed by the respondent-M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd., was Rs. 10,00,000/-. 36 cheques were issued to the respondent by the petitioners towards the payment of 36 Equal Monthly Instalments in order to repay the loan. Out of 36 cheques, 33 cheques have been encashed. The last 3 cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured. The factum of dishonour of those cheques was informed to the petitioners by issuance of notice. Since petitioners failed to pay the amount shown under the last 3 cheques even after issuance of notice, three separate complaints came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 138 of N.I. Act. This case is arising out of one such complaint. The petitioners/accused appeared and having denied the charge, the respondent/complainant examined as many as 3 witnesses as P.W. 1 to PW3 and 25 documents came to be marked as Exs. P1 to P25. On behalf of the petitioners/accused, no evidence has been led either oral or documentary. When the matter was posted for arguments, the counsel for the petitioners has contended that the person who has filed the complaint is a Recovery Officer of the complainant's company, who is not properly authorized to file complaint and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The second contention was that Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused contained an arbitration clause, there was defect in the machinery supplied, the company which delivered the machinery committed breach of warranty of the terms of the contract, therefore, disputes that arose between the complainant and the accused ought to have been referred to arbitration, the prosecution of the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not maintainable. The other contention was that the cheque was issued towards security and when the cheque was dishonoured, no complaint can be filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be invoked.

2. Upon hearing the arguments addressed by learned counsel for both the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and thereby convicted the petitioners/accused by order dated 11.04.2002 in C.C. Nos. 22939/1996, 22940/1996 and 22941/1996. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the petitioners/accused filed a Criminal Appeal No. 15040/2002 on the file of the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who in turn upon re-appreciation of the evidence dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this Revision Petition is preferred by the revision petitioners/accused.

3. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. Perused the records.

4. The only point that was canvassed seriously during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the complaint presented by the Recovery Officer working for the complainant's company without any authorization is not maintainable and that the subsequent pr