K. Harilal, J.

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 572/05 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Erattupetta, as well as the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 106/07 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act') on a complaint filed by the complainant/2nd respondent. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the said offence and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay a compensation of Rs.14,27,464/- to the complainant/2nd respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Though he had preferred an appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence entered on various grounds.

2. The case of the complainant is that towards the payment of the value of timber supplied, the accused issued Ext. P1 cheque dated 31/3/2005 for Rs.14,27,464/- to him. When he presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Though he had issued statutory notice demanding the cheque amount, the revision petitioner had not paid the said amount; but sent a reply denying the said claim. Thus, the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The complainant's case, in brief, is as follows: The complainant is a merchant conducting the business of Timber and the accused is a customer by name "Shri. Chacko Mathew, Managing Director, PACT Rubber Wood & Allied Products Ltd., Kottayam". The accused is having a timber industry unit at Peruva, where the complainant had supplied timber logs to the accused worth Rs.14,27,464/-. In discharge of that liability, the accused came to his residence and issued the cheque dated 31.3.2005 for an amount of Rs.14,27,464/-. When he presented the cheque for encashment through his Bank, the same was dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient fund. Though he caused to issue Lawyer's notice demanding the cheque amount, the accused did not pay the cheque amount, but sent a reply denying the liability. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. Though this Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds, Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, focused on one point only at the time of argument. The learned counsel submits that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the company who had drawn the cheque has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. The Managing Director who had signed the cheque for and on behalf of the company alone was made an accused. The prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not be maintainable unless the drawer of the cheque, the company, is made as an accused. The maintainability of the complaint for the above reason was one of the main contentions raised in the trial Court. But the learned Magistrate rejected the contention relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., [(2000)1 SCC 1] and other decisions of this Court in Gracy Thomas v. State of Kerala, (2005(4) KLT SN 75) and N. Radhakrishnan v. A.C. Thomas, [2006(1) KLD (Cri) 352], which followed the above decision. In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the prosecution of the Company is not sine qua non for prosecution of the other categories mentioned under Section 141 of the Act. In N. Radhakrishnan's case (cited supra) it was held that the Managing Partner who signed the cheque on behalf of the firm is the drawer of the cheque notwithstanding the fact that the account stands in the name of the firm. Now the Supreme