Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – The petitioner is the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter described as the N.I. Act) which was registered as Complaint Case No. 3070 (C) of 2008. The said complaint case was disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Patna, holding the petitioner guilty for committing offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereby convicting and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of one year and also to make payment of Rs. 3,81,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 in lieu of cheque amount of Rs. 2,80,848/-. The petitioner assailed the said judgement and order of conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court at Patna, in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013. The said appeal was dismissed on contest, affirming the judgement and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

2. Assailing the order of conviction and sentence, which was affirmed by the Trial Court, the accused/petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Opposite Party No. 2, as one of the partners of M/s Patna Paper Company, filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without taking any letter of authorization from other partners. Therefore, the petition of complaint was bad in law as it was not authorized by all the partners of M/s Patna Paper Company.

4. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the case of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is that in order to discharge the debt or existing liability, the petitioner issued one account payee cheque, dated 12th of May, 2008, for a sum of Rs. 2,80,848/- in favour of M/s Patna Paper Company drawn on State Bank of India, Chauhatta Branch, Patna. The complainant duly presented the said cheque with his banker for encashment but it was returned, dishonoured with a Memo, Dated 6th of September, 2008, with a remark ‘insufficient funds’. After the said cheque being dishonoured, the complainant issued legal notice through his Advocate on 18th of September, 2008, under Section 138 of the N.I., Act through registered post, dated 20th of September, 2008, demanding payment of cheque amount. But it was mentioned on behalf of the complainant that the accused persons got the said notice returned by bringing the Postman in collusion with an endorsement “Always not met”. It is further alleged by the complainant that he sent another notice on 4th of October, 2008 to the petitioner through registered post but in spite of service of notice, the petitioner failed to make payment.

5. When the accused/petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period of time, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint on 12th of November, 2008, alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 406, 120B of the IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of offence against the accused persons and issued summons to him. The accused duly appeared before the Court.

6. Trial of the case commenced and on completion of trial, the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

7. The said order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

8. In the instant Revision, it is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the complainant personally is neither payee nor holder in due course of cheque. M/s Patna Paper Company is the payee or holder of the cheque in due course. Therefore, the complainant in his personal capacity has no right to lodge the complainant against the petitioner. It is also contended by the petitioner that save and except the notice dated 18th of September, 2008, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner by the complainant, much less the notice dated 4th of October, 2008.

9. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the above mentioned issues and held the petitioner convicted for committ