Sudheendra Kumar, J.

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the 'N.I. Act').

2. The case of the complainant, who is the 1st respondent herein, can be briefly stated as follows:-

"The complainant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of advancing money under hire purchase agreement. Towards the discharge of the liability of the revision petitioner to the complainant, the revision petitioner issued Ext. P2 cheque in favour of the complainant. Since the said cheque was dishonoured, the complainant filed the complaint after complying with the legal formalities."

3. Before the Trial Court, the authorised representative of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked for the complainant. The revision petitioner himself got examined as DW1 and Ext. D1 was marked through him.

4. Heard.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since the amount in Ext. P2 cheque includes the normal interest of 18% per annum and the penal interest of 3% per month, the amount covered by Ext. P2 is not legally enforceable in view of Section 7(1) of the Kerala