B. Rajendran, J.

1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 118 of 2009 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15 and they have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment Till the Raising of the Court and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 22,400/- as compensation in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. As against the conviction and sentence imposed, the petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 118 of 2009 and the first appellate Court by judgment dated 04.03.2010 confirmed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

"The petitioners/accused is a subscriber of the chit with tine complainants company and they have also prized the chit amount before the termination period; however, they have not paid the balance chit amount within the stipulated period; Hence, the complainant requested them to discharge their legal dues; for which, the petitioners jointly issued a cheque dated 03.10.2002 for a sum of Rs. 22,400/-. However, when it was presented for payment, the same was returned on 07.10.2002 with the endorsement Insufficient funds. Hence, the complaint."

2. The main ground of attack made by the revision petitioner before this Court is that the complainant is a Private Limited Company; hence, the proper and correct person has not filed the complaint. If the complainant is a proprietary concern, only the owner has to be cited as a party and not the power of attorney holder as cited in this case. Further, the cause title does not denote correctly the parties name. He would contend that the very chit company is not a registered company. Accordingly, he would submit that since the very filing of the complaint itself is wrong, the same is not maintainable.

3. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a discrepancy in the amount claimed. According to the petitioners, though in the complaint the cheque amount was stated as Rs. 22,000/-, when the legal notice was issued the amount was mentioned as Rs. 22,400/-. According to the petitioners, the cheque was given only as a blank cheque for security purpose and that the complainant has misused the same. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the conviction and sentence ordered by both the courts below.

4. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant would contend that the very nomenclature in the cause title does not matter, that too, when the payees name has been correctly mentioned in the cause title, what has to be seen is as to whether the cheque in the said name, corresponds with the name in the case. Further their contention is that the respondent being a proprietary concern represented by the power of attorney under the power executed by the sole proprietor can file a complaint. According to the complainant, once the transaction is proved in accordance with law, whether the complaint is preferred by the company in the name of its proprietor or the power of attorney, is not a matter of concern as the same is valid in law.

5. As far as the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the discrepancy in mentioning the cheque amount is concerned, the contention of the respondent/complainant is that, it is only a typographical error and that cannot be taken as a mistake.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Earlier the respondent was represented by one M/s. Span Associates. However, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that they have handed over the case bundle to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, this Court directed the learned counsel to send a private notice to the party stating that the matter is to be taken up for final disposal. Though as per the direction of this Court, notice has been served on the respo