ORDER :

This revision is at the instance of the 2nd accused in C.C. No.695 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally, assailing the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.226 of 2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-1), Kottayam, which upheld his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the N.I Act'), and modified the sentence and reduced it into imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.10 lakh with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months with a direction that, if the fine amount is paid, it shall be given to the complainant/1st respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

2. C.C. No. 695 of 2000 was based on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, with regard to dishonour of Ext.P2 cheque dated 20.02.2000 issued by the revision petitioner as the Managing Director of Omnitech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd towards discharge of Rs.10 lakh due to the 1st respondent/ complainant, from the 1st accused-company.

3. In the complaint, the company was the 1st accused, its Managing Director was the 2nd accused, and other Directors were accused Nos. 3 to 5.

4. On appearance of accused persons before the Magistrate court, particulars of offence was read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the complainant examined PWs.1 to 4, and marked Exts.P1 to P18 to prove his case.

5. On closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied, all the incriminating circumstances brought on record. No defence evidence was adduced.

6. On hearing the rival contentions from either side and on analysing the facts and evidence, the trial court found all the accused guilty under Section 138 of the N.I Act, and 1st accused-company was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-and accused Nos.2 to 5 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-by each, and in default of payment of compensation, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months each.

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 to 3 preferred Crl. Appeal No.226 of 2005 and accused No.5 preferred Crl. Appeal No.230 of 2005. Both appeals were heard together by the appellate court, and Crl. Appeal No.226 of 2005 was allowed in part, by acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 3 and upholding the conviction of 2nd accused/revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act and modifying and reducing the substantive sentence into imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs.10 lakh. The appeal filed by the 5th accused as Crl. Appeal No.230 of 2005 was also allowed, setting aside his conviction and senctence under Section 138 of the N.I Act. So, in effect only the conviction of the revision petitioner/2nd accused was upheld by the appellate court, though his substantive sentence was modified and reduced, and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.10 lakh, against which, he has come up with this revision.

8. Now this Court is called upon to verify the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment in Crl. Appeal No.226 of 2005, which upheld the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act and a modified sentence was imposed.

9. Though service is complete, none appears for the 1st respondent/complainant.

10. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is impugning the judgment, mainly on the ground that, when the company in which he was the Managing Director was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, he being its Managing Director, has no vicarious liability for the offence committed by the company. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant also was that, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P2 cheque in his capa