IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 920 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.286/1999 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.304/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SIRAJUDHEEN E., PUSHPA RICE MILL, KANNAMKARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K. GEORGE DOMINIC, S/O.K.M.DOMINIC. M/S.SAMURAI ENGINEERING SERVICES, 0.S.-59, G.C.D.A. COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (SRI. P.P.SRI.B.JAYASURYA.) FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON 01/07/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No. 920 of 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.304 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam. The first respondent, who is the complainant who filed a complaint against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the N.I. Act' for short). The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.58,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence, this revision. 2. As per the allegations in the complaint, the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.3.1996 for an amount of Rs.57834/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Pathanamthitta for the discharge of a debt incurred in favour of the complainant firm. The cheque on presentation to the bank was dishonoured for insufficiency of fund. Hence a notice was Crl.R.P.920/2000 2 issued to the accused but the amount was not paid, though he acknowledged receipt of notice. After compliance of the legal formalities, a complaint was filed by PW1 on behalf of the firm. 3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held that the accused is guilty of offence under sectiion138 of the N.I. Act. An argument was raised that PW1 has no locus standi to file the complaint. But both courts rejected this argument. As per the revision memo, as ground no.(F), revision petitioner has put forward a ground that lower appellate court ought to have found that PW1 was not authorised by the partners and that there is no evidence to support the claim that he was authorised to file the complaint. 4. On going through the judgment of the lower appellate court, I find that that learned Judge has relied upon the the evidence on record to hold that PW1 has no locus standi to file the complaint. The arguments raised on this issue were duly dealt with in paragraph 8 of the judgment. The appellate court also relied upon Ext.D1, which is a photocopy of the partnership deed relating to the complaint and a letter which was appended to that document. In the letter appended to the partnership deed, which is addressed to the Manager, Vijaya Bank, it is clearly mentioned that in the absence of the Manager of the Crl.R.P.920/2000 3 complainant firm,PW1 is authorised to sign cheques, to submit and collect bills and documents etc. and that he will sign as manager. The appellate court also found, in the light of the decision reported in Solar Solvent Extractions v. South India Viscose Ltd. (1994 (2) KLT Short Notes 23, page 17), that a manager of the firm can file a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Both the courts found that PW1 has locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of the firm and I do not find any perversity in those findings. 5. Apart from the above grounds, there are only general grounds raised in the revision memo to the effect that conviction and sentence are are illegal, improper, irregular etc. There was no representation for the revision petitioner when this case was called. This revision is of the year 2000. 6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. The sentence passed cannot be said to be highly excessive as contended by the revision petitioner. This revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE krs. Crl.R.P.920/2000 4 K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No. 920 of 2000 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R