The sufficiency of a legal notice under the N.I. Act does not require specific formulations, and a managing partner can send notice on behalf of the firm.

1. Crl.R.P.No.65/2017 arises out of judgment in CC.No.2183/2015 dated 29/01/2016 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I Act Cases), Kozhikode and the judgment dated 26/11/2016 in Crl.A.No.83/2016 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

2. Crl.R.P.No.66/2017 arises out of judgment in CC.No.2181/2015 dated 29/01/2016 on the file of the Special Judicial first Class Magistrate Court (N.I Act Cases), Kozhikode and the judgment dated 26/11/2016 in Crl.A.No.82/2016 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

3. Crl.R.P.No.67/2017 arises out of judgment in CC.No.2182/2015 dated 29/01/2016 on the file of the Special Judicial first Class Magistrate Court (N.I Act Cases), Kozhikode and the judgment dated 26/11/2016 in C.A.No.84/2016 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

4. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the sole accused in the above cases, who suffered conviction and sentence at the hands of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The 1st respondent in all these matters is the original complainant and the 2nd respondent is State of Kerala.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent also was heard.

6. I would like to refer the parties in these revision petitions as 'revision petitioner' (accused) and the 'first respondent' (complainant), hereafter for convenience.

7. Short facts of the case: The complainant, a partnership firm 'M/s. Valiery Vaidyasala', lodged separate complaints under S.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I Act' for short) through its Managing Director Dr. K. P. Saji Kumar when Ext.P3 cheque dated 24/11/2011, Ext.P10 cheque dated 30/11/2011, Ext.P17 cheque dated 08/12/2011, Ext.P24 cheque dated 06/01/2012, Ext.P32 cheque dated 22/12/2012, Ext.P39 cheque dated 02/12/2011, and Ext.P46 cheque dated 20/11/2011 were dishonoured, when the same were presented for collection. The complainant raised allegation in the complaint that the complainant through its Managing Director maintained business dealings with the 2nd accused, who has been running business under the name 'M/s. Taj Pharmaceutical Distributors' and the above cheques were issued in discharge of the liability for purchase of medicines by the accused from the complainant.

8. The Trial Court tried all these 3 cases together. The Trial Court secured the presence of the accused for trial and tried the matter. PW1 and PW2 examined and Exts.P1 to P57 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Though the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence, no defence evidence adduced. The Trial Court appraised the evidence and finally convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him (the second accused) in C.C.No.2181/2015 to undergo imprisonment for 2 months and directed to pay fine of Rs.2 lakh; in C.C.No.2182/2015 to undergo imprisonment for 2 months and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in C.C.No.2183/2015 to undergo imprisonment for 2 months and directed to pay fine of Rs.3 lakh. In default of payment of fine in all the 3 cases, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the fine was ordered to be paid as compensation under S.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C to the complainant.

9. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence, while modifying the substantive sentence in all the 3 cases to imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and ordered to pay fine