1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Judgment, dated 26.05.2005 made in C.A.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, confirming the Judgment, dated 29.06.2004 passed in C.C.No.265 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

2. The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate on the complaint given by the respondent / complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument. After the trial, the petitioner / accused was found guilty by the trial court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The petitioner / accused was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent / complainant.

3. The appellate court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant / accused.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / accused submitted that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-from one Sri Balaji Finance, whose proprietrix has been Smt. Sampoornam. In order to discharge the said liability, two cheques, each for Rs.50,000/- were drawn and issued in favour of the said Sri Balaji Finance by the petitioner from the Bank Account with Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited. When the cheques were presented for collection through the payees Bank, the same were returned on 06.03.2000 with an endorsement that the account had been closed.

5. Hence, the respondent, after issuing statutory notice, demanding the cheque amount, filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem. According to the respondent, the petitioner / accused had received the statutory notice sent by the respondent, however, the demand to pay the cheque amount was not complied with by him.

6. Considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial court found the petitioner guilty, under Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-with a default sentence of one year.

7. In the appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court and the appeal was dismissed.

8. In the criminal revision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had not appraised the evidence properly as per law. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the proprietrix of the respondent concern was not examined as a witness, hence, it could have been decided that the respondent has not established the guilt against the petitioner / accused, for which, he relied on the decision Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd and others reported in 2005 (3) CTC 128.

9. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner has further stated that the complaint in question was not been filed by the person as mandated under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, hence, the Court should have rejected the same. It is seen that the complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the power of attorney holder of the respondent. In support of the contention, the power of attorney deed, dated 210. 1999 executed by the proprietrix of the respondent concern, in favour of the power of attorney holder has been marked as Ex.P.1 and the power of attorney holder of the respondent has examined himself as P.W.1. As power of attorney holder of the respondent /complainant, there is no bar against P.W.1 in conducting the case, though he cannot adduce direct evidence as the respondent.

10. In the instant case, the dishonoured cheques, dated 13.09.1999 and 20.09.1999 were marked as Ex.P.3 series. Subsequently, after the dishonour of the cheques, legal notice dated 20.03.2000 was issued by the respondent, a copy of the same has been marked as Ex.P.4 and the post