K. Harilal, J.

1. In all the above revision petitions, the revision petitioner and the respondents are one and the same and the impugned judgments, which confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'the N.I. Act') are under challenge. Since a common question of law is involved in all these revision petitions and the parties are the same, these revision petitions were heard jointly and disposed of in a common order as under.

2. The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C. Nos. 283/97, 281/97 and 282/97 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kochi, filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The first accused is a firm and the second accused is its Managing Partner. The facts of all these cases are also similar. The complainant is a shipping company and the first accused company is a customer. The complainant's case in all the cases can be summarised as follows: (The parties are referred to as in the complaint.) Towards freight charges due from the first accused, the first accused firm had issued three cheques for the amounts of Rs.1,87,782/-,Rs. 1,87,467/- and Rs.1,87,527/- dated 3/10/1996, 24/10/1996 and 8/11/1996 respectively drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Thoppumpady Branch, to the complainant. When these cheques were presented for enacashment, they were dishonoured and returned due to 'insufficiency of funds'. Though the complainant had caused to issue a lawyer's notice to the second accused requiring the payment of the cheque amounts, he did not pay the cheque amounts; nor did he send a reply notice denying the liability. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in each complaint. Therefore, the complainant filed the above complaints separately in respect of each cheque alleging the said offence.

3. The accused admitted the issuance of the cheques as well as the signatures in all the cheques. But, according to the accused, the cheques were issued as security and thereby the cheques lack consideration. In short, the defence contention is that the cheques were issued not in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

4. In all the cases, the respective cheques were marked as Ext. P2. The Power-of-Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and the Manager of the Bank was examined as P.W.2 and Exts. P1 to P7 were also marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, had been adduced by the accused.

5. When the second accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty. He maintained his contention that the concerned cheques were issued as security and the cheques lack consideration. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the first accused firm not guilty of the offence on the ground that complaint is not maintainable, in the absence of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act to the first accused firm. But, the second accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months more. If the fine amount is realised, out of it, Rs.500/- shall be given to the complainant company by way of compensation.

6. Though the second accused had preferred appeals before the Court of Sessions, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial court, upheld the conviction; but modified the sentence imposed by the trial court. The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced and modified to simple imprisonment. The rest of the sentence was sustained as such, without any interference. The legality and propriety of the concurren