These three Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.12.2015 rendered by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.Nos.78, 79 & 80 of 2014, whereby the accused in the 3 complaints concerned has been acquitted by the said lower appellate court of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st respondent has been arrayed as accused for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act in S.T.Nos.1705, 1807 & 1808 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- VII, Ernakulam, instituted on the basis of said three complaints filed by the appellant herein.

2. Ext.P-1 dishonoured cheque dated 8.10.2007 is for Rs.2 lakhs, which is the subject matter of S.T.No.1705/2008 and Crl.A.No.78/2014. Ext.P-7 cheque for Rs.3 lakhs dated 18.1.2008 is the subject matter of S.T.No.1807/2008 and Crl.A.No.79/2014. Ext.P-17 dishonoured cheque for Rs.2 lakhs dated 14.1.2008 is the cheque involved in S.T.No.1808/2008 and Crl.A.No.80/2014. All the three complaints were jointly tried and the parties are the same.

3. The trial court as per the impugned common judgment dated 31.1.2014 had convicted the accused in all the three complaints. In S.T.No.1705/2008, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. In S.T.No.1807/2008, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Whereas the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in S.T.No.1808/2008 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence the accused had preferred the above said three Criminal Appeals before the appellate Sessions Court. The appellate court as per the impugned common judgment dated 16.12.2015 has reversed the conviction and has acquitted the accused in all the 3 complaints on the ground that the cheques in question have been issued by a proprietary concern and that the sole proprietary concern has not been made as an accused in the complaints and therefore it warrants acquittal of the accused.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal rendered by the lower appellate court, the complainant had preferred petitions under Sec.378(4) of the Cr.P.C seeking leave of this Court to institute Criminal Appeals to impugn the said judgment of acquittal. This Court has granted leave in all those petitions and thus the Criminal Appeals have been instituted for impugning the said judgment of acquittal.

5. Heard Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. Though notice has been duly served on R-1 (accused) in all the 3 appeals, the said party has not entered appearance.

6. It is not in dispute that the 3 dishonoured cheques in question have been issued by “M/s. Little Flower Tex” through its proprietor. The lower appellate court has found that in such a situation, the individual proprietor of the said sole proprietary concern should have been arrayed as accused in the complaints and since all the 3 complaints have arrayed only “M/s. Little Flower Tex” represented by its proprietor “Sri.Lawrence C.Antony, aged 48 years, Elthuruth P.O., Thrissur District-680 611”, the complaints are not maintainable as the proprietor himself should have been clearly arrayed as accused in the complaints.

7. In the judgment in Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 536, the Apex Court dealt with a case wherein payee of the