The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Power of Attorney Holder can maintain a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if they have personal knowledge about the transactions, and even an unregistered firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This Criminal Revision case was filed against the judgment dated 14.12.2016 made in Crl.Appeal No.114 of 2015 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur made in C.C.No.628 of 2012 by order dated 30.11.2015 whereby, the revision petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also to pay a compensation of Rs.23,32,050/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. The respondent herein is the complainant before the Trial Court and would be called as complainant hereinafter. The revision petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court, who will be called as accused for the sake of brevity. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court was that, it is a partnership firm where, there were two partners by name, one Ragasami and one Karunanathi. According to the complainant, the accused is a proprietary concern and was carrying on business of yarn trading, who, approached the complainant along with one Kumaraswamy, who was running a business concern with M/s.Thambi Yarns for supply of yarn to the complainant's firm. The complainant after having negotiated with the accused had agreed to purchase yarn from the accused and in this regard, the accused had issued invoices for purchase of yarn by the complainant on 25.04.2012 vide invoice No.7 and 8 and the accused had agreed to supply yarn by "30 slub yarn, Dharamdara variety", to the complainant and the complainant also had agreed to purchase the said yarn from the accused.

3. It is the further case of the complainant before the Trial Court that, the complainant pursuant to the said agreement, had issued two purchase orders on 25.04.2012 vide Purchase Order No.38 and 39 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-by Demand Draft No.929131 and a sum of Rs.7,70,080/- by Demand Draft No.929132 to the accused and also paid a sum of Rs.12,70,080/- by cash on 25.04.2012 to the accused and after receiving the said sum totalling Rs.25,40,160/- towards full satisfaction for the supply of yarn for the agreed quantity, the accused had agreed to supply the yarn within four days time.

4. It is the further case of the complainant that, the accused since had agreed to supply the yarn in entirety within four days i.e., on or before 29.04.2012, only on the basis of the said assurance and agreement, the entire amount was paid by the complainant on 25.04.2012 by way of demand draft and by way of cash as stated above. However, within the time stipulated, the accused did not supply the yarn. Therefore, when the complainant demanded either to supply the yarn or to return the amount paid by the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque on 04.05.2012 in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs.12,70,080/- through cheque No.000044, drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Tiruppur Branch as proprietor of the accused concern. The accused had issued another cheque on 11.05.2012 in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.116109, drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruppur Branch in individual capacity. The accused had further issued another cheque on the same day i.e., on 11.05.2012 to the complainant, in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.7,70,080/- through cheque bearing No.116110 drawn on ICICI Bank, Tiruppur Branch.

5. It is the further case of the complaint that, since the three cheques had been issued by the accused towards the discharge of the legal liability of repaying the sum of Rs.25,40,160/-, the said cheques had been presented, as per the instructions given by the accused, for collection at the complainant s bank on 05.07.2012 i.e., Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Tiruppur. But the said cheque was returned through their bank on 06.07.2012 with the reason “funds insufficient”. The other two cheques i.e., second and third cheques also had been returned on the same d