1. The revision petitioners herein are the accused. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence by the Judicial Magistrate No. IV Salem, which was confirmed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, awarding simple imprisonment of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the present revision came be filed by the accused/revisionists.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision are:

(i) The 2nd and 3rd accused are husband and wife and they were running Motorcycle company at Erode and Salem. In the month of December, 2005 both of them approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 18.12.2005 (Ex.P1) as loan for their business purpose on behalf of the 1st accused Firm and in consideration thereof, a cheque was given to the complainant by the accused under the signature of 2nd accused. They also pleaded of financial crunch and ensured to pay back the amount to the complainant within a month and trusting their words, the said amount was given by way of loan. When the said cheque was presented before the ICICI Bank, Erode Branch, the same was returned with an endorsement insufficient fund Ex.P3. Ex.P4 is the banker's letter. When the complainant requested the accused, they impudently refused to pay back and, therefore, a statutory notice was issued demanding the amount and since no amount was paid pursuant thereto, the instant complaint was filed.

(ii) In the complaint filed by the present complainant/respondent, after recording of the evidence, further submission of accused was recorded where he denied the allegations and insisted that there was misuse of blank cheque by the complainant. It is the case of the accused that they are stranger to the complainant and that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant. According to them, they never borrowed amount from the complainant. It is stated that one Mohan was working in the branch office of the accused company at Salem and that there was financial transaction between the accused and the said Mohan. On 02.10.2004, the accused sought financial help from Mohan for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Accordingly, the said Mohan arranged finance on 04.10.2004. At that time, the accused issued a cheque Ex.P1 to the said Mohan. Apart from Ex.P1, the accused also handed over blank cheques to the said Mohan. Even after settlement of the amount advanced, the said Mohan did not return the amount. Thereafter, the accused Firm suffered huge loss in business and that the Principal i.e. New Royal Enfield Motor Cycles also sent a notice to cancel the dealership and at that time Mohan requested the accused to recommend his name. As the accused did not agree for that, the said Mohan, has misused the blank cheques. DW-2 also stated that blank cheques were misused by the said Mohan.

(iii) The complaint preferred by the complainant/respondent was taken cognizance in STC No. 1536 of 2006. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV Salem found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed sentence to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default, Simple Imprisonment for two months. Against which, the accused/revisionists preferred an appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 162 of 2010 and the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. 1, Salem, vide judgment dated 10.11.2011 confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, the accused/ revisionists are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/accused submitted that there is no privity of contract between the accused and the complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that the oral and documentary evidence adduc