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 Money-Lenders Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent has argued that since the first respondent is a firm, the provisions of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act are not applicable to the first respondent. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the notification issued by the State Government under proviso two to Section 7(1) of the Act was applicable only with effect from 11.03.2005 and not at the time of transaction involved in this case and in the said circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard cannot hold good. The learned counsel for the first respondent has also argued that since the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act was not even enacted during the period of the transaction involved in this case, the argument in this regard cannot also be accepted.

7. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is a partnership firm. PW1 stated in the cross-examination that the firm of the complainant is engaged in the business of advancing money under hire purchase agreement. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exts. P6 and P7 would show that PW1 had advanced an amount of Rs.26,000/- to the revision petitioner on 10.11.1999 for purchasing a two wheeler on the basis of Ext. P7 hire purchase agreement.

8. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the provisions of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act are applicable to the complainant. In Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2009 (4) KLT 833 : 2009 (4) KHC 871), the Division Bench of this Court held that the Companies registered under the Companies Act or Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or even the partnerships registered under the Partnership Act or the like are institutions answering the description of 'person' referred to in Section 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act. The Court further held in Sundaram Finance (supra) that the above said institutions are not the institutions covered by clause (f) of Section 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act. Thus, it is now settled that the provisions of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act are applicable to companies registered under the Companies Act or societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or even partnerships registered under the Partnership Act or the like. The Division Bench further held in Sundaram Finance (supra) that the provisions of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act are applicable to the non-banking financial companies, because they are engaged in money lending business. Referring to the attack on the Constitutional validity of Section 7(1) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, the Division Bench in S