O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1,2 and 6 in C.C.No.1168/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.III, Palakkad. The revision petitioners assail judgment dated 05.10.2013 in the above case as well as the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.331/2013 before the Additional Sessions Court-V, Palakkad. The respondents herein are the complainant as well as the State of Kerala. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in detail. Perused the lower court records.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as `complainant'

and `accused' for convenience.

4. The complainant lodged complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (`N.I Act' for short) contending that the complainant used to supply electrical equipments and products to the 6^th accused on behalf of accused 1 to 5 and the 1^st accused issued cheque for Rs.7,83,929.50 dated 18.04.2009 drawn on South Indian Bank signed by the 2^nd accused as the Director of the 1^st accused for discharging the liability of the 6^th accused, as on 18.04.2009. On presentation of the cheque, the same got dishonoured for want of funds. Consequently, notice of dishonour was issued and the amount covered by the cheque was demanded, but the accused did not heed the demand.

5. The trial court took cognizance of this matter and issued summons to the accused and proceeded with trial on compliance of the legal formalities.

6. During trial PW1 examined and Exts.P1 to P21 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exts.D1 to D2 were marked as defence evidence.

7. On hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found that accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were not guilty, while holding that accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and accused 1 and 6 were sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.7,83,929.50 equally to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The 2^nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years.

8. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge concurred the finding of conviction while modifying the sentence imposed against the 2^nd accused to 7 months.

9. While assailing concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for accused 1, 2 and 6/revision petitioners submitted that in this matter, the transaction, issuance and execution of Ext.P2 cheque not at all proved, as mandated by law. The learned counsel also submitted that the complaint was filed by MIRC Electronics Limited represented by its Branch Accountant Albi. At the time of evidence, one Pradeep Menon, S/o.Achuthannair, was examined to prove the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque and he was the power of attorney holder of the company and he did not have any direct knowledge regarding the transaction, issuance or execution of the cheque and, therefore, his evidence is quite insufficient to prove the transaction and execution of Ext.P2 by the accused as contended by the complainant and for the sole reason the complainant failed to discharge his initial burden in the matter of transaction led to execution of Ext.P2. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court deserve interference and accused 1, 2 and 6 are liable to be acquitted. 10. The learned counsel for accused 1, 2 and 6 placed decisions of this Court reported in [2016 (3) KHC 229 : 2016 (2) KLD 180 : 2016 (2) KLJ 792 : ILR 2016 (3) Ker. 243 : 2016 (3) KLT SN 62], Sukumaran P.N v. K.N.Madhavan Nair & Ors. and [2022 KHC 548 : 2022 (5) KHC SN 14 : 2022 (2) KLD 343 : 2022 KHC OnLine 548 : 2022(4) KLT 592 : 2022 (3) KLJ 573], Shibu L.P v. Neelakantan & another to buttress his argument in this line. In Shibu L.P v. Neelakantan & another's case (supra), in paragraph 15, this Court, a