Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of the accused's authoritative role in a company; the court affirmed such liability in this case.

ORDER :

M.B.SNEHALATHA, J.

1. Revision Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in S.T.No.5587/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Ernakulam and the appellant in Crl.A. No.182/2017 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He calls into question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I Act).

2. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the accused as arraigned before the trial court.

3. The complainant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and it is engaged in manufacturing and distribution of cement. 1^st accused is a Private Limited Company. 2^nd accused is the Managing Director of the 1^st accused company and he is in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the 1^st accused company. Accused had a business relationship with the complainant company and the accused had purchased cement from the complainant company on a credit basis in the course of their regular transaction. Towards partial discharge of the amount due to the complainant company, accused issued Exts.P2 to P4 cheques of Rs.2 lakhs each in favour of the complainant company. Upon presentation of Exts.P2 to P4 cheques for collection, the same were returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Upon receipt of Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) dishonour memos from the bank, complainant caused to sent Ext.P6 lawyer notice to both accused, intimating the factum of dishonour of cheques and demanding the amount covered by Exts.P2 to P4 cheques. Accused accepted the notice and sent reply notice. Though in the reply notice accused agreed to pay the amount, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Exts.P2 to P4 cheques and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

4. Both accused faced trial and denied their liability to pay any amount to the complainant and denied the issuance of Exts.P2 to P4 cheques to the complainant in discharge of any debt or liability.

5. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P8(a). No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. It is brone out from the trial court records that though the reply notice was marked as Ext.P8, it do not find a place in the appendix of the judgment.

6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty under Section 138 N.I Act. A2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.6 lakhs as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.PC. In default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

7. In the appeal preferred by the 2^nd accused as Crl.A.No.182/2017 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the conviction under Section 138 N.I Act was confirmed, but the sentence was modified. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of one year was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C imposed by the trial court was not interfered with in appeal.

8. Challenging the finding of conviction and sentence, A2 has preferred this revision petition, contending that the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective; that the conviction and sentence against A2 are bad in law.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that there are absolutely no reasons to unsettle the findings of the trial court and the appellate court and the revisio