ORDER :

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2006 passed in Crl.Appeal No.845 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which was preferred by the revision petitioners against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.10.2005 in CC No.592 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam.

2. The revision petitioners were the accused in CC No.592 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam consequent to a private complaint instituted by the 1st respondent (complainant) against the revision petitioners/accused 1 and 2 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'). Parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' and 'the accused' according to their status in the trial court unless it is otherwise stated.

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as hereunder:-

The complainant, M/s Shipping Corporation of India, is represented by its local agent, M/s Jairam & Sons. The 1st accused, who is an exporting firm, and the 2nd accused, who is its partner, had approached the complainant through its local agent and requested them to ship their cargo from Kochi to Hamburg. All the details of shipments were discussed in detail including the payment of freight charges etc. Accordingly, the accused shipped 400 bags of black pepper through the complainant as per vessel “ACACIA-VOY.399” from Kochi to Hamburg. Towards the freight amount, the accused issued cheque No.509028 dated 26.05.1999 for Rs.79,160/-drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank, Ernakulam Branch, Cochin-16. When the complainant presented the above cheque for collection through their banker, State Bank of India, Willington Island, Cochin, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Exceed Arrangement' as per memo dated 18.05.1999 issued by the Karoor Vysya Bank, Ernakulam. Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered notice on 11.06.1999, demanding the amount covered under the cheque. The accused acknowledged the above notice on 14.06.1999. Even after receipt of the demand notice, the accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque. Hence, the complaint.

4. On service of summons, the accused appeared before the trial court. Particulars of the offence were read over and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the officer of the complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. After PW1 was examined, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. DW1 was examined on the side of the accused.

5. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned magistrate held that the execution of the cheque was admitted by the accused and that the cheque was proved by the complainant that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'Exceed Arrangement'. Hence, the learned magistrate concluded that the cheque was issued by the accused for the discharge of a debt or liability.

6. Heard Sri.Ashik A. Mohamed Ali, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners; Sri.Vipin P. Varghese, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent; and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State.

7. Sri.Ashik A. Mohamed Ali, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the revision petitioners, contended that the evidence in the above case, even if given face value and taken to be correct, do not constitute an offence alleged against the accused in terms of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. It was further submitted that, in any event, the bill of lading as well as the averments in the complaint clearly spells out that the complainant is a public sector company owned by the Government of India and the company cannot issue a letter authorizing somebody to represent in a legal proceeding. It w