ORDER B.V. PINTO, J.—These four petitions arises out of the judgment, dated 9.1.2007, passed by the 14th ACMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 26404/2002, wherein, the trial Court, convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 85,25,000/- and in default, directed A2, A4 and A5 to suffer ST for 2 years and with a direction that the fine amount of Rs. 85,25,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Challenging the said order of conviction, A2 has filed Crl. A. No. 250 14/2007 and A5 has filed Crl. A. No. 250 18/2007 whereas A4 has filed Crl. A. No. 250 10/2007 before the Sessions Court, Bangalore, All these Criminal Appeals were heard by the 13th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore and by judgment dated 9.5.2008, the said appeals were dismissed. The complainant being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence has filed Crl. R.P. No. 558/2007 before this Court and since all the 4 matters pertain to the same judgment all the 4 appeals are taken up together for the purpose of disposal. 2. Parties are referred as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the 14th ACMM, Bangalore on 18.2.2002 alleging that the accused No. 1 being the firm and accused Nos. 2 to 5 being the partners therein, were transacting with the complainant and in respect of the liability, they issued a cheque bearing No. 452858 dated 31.12.2001. in favour of the complainant for Rs. 84,99,666/- and the cheque when presented for payment, got dishonoured and, therefore, after issuance of notice as per Section 138 of N.I. Act and in view of there being no payment of the cheque amount, complaint came to be filed before the Magistrate at Bangalore. The Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn, statement of the complainant and thereafter issued process to the accused. Out of the 5 accused, accused No. 3 by name Kallesh G. filed Crl. P. No. 87/03 before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings against A3 by order dated 14.2.2003 and, therefore, it is A1 and A2, A4 and A5 who have faced trial before the Magistrate. After recording the accusation from the accused persons, the complainant has examined one V.S. Nagesh as P.W. 1 and has got marked Exs. P. No. 87/03 before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings against A3 by order dated 14.2.2003 and, therefore, it is A1 and A2, A4 and A5 who have faced trial before the Magistrate. After recording the accusation from the accused persons, the complainant has examined one V.S. Nagesh as P.W. 1 and has got marked Exs. P1 to P57 in support of his case. 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and the accused has got examined DWs. 1 to 5 and have produced Exs. D1 to D45. 5. After bearing the complainant and the defence and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the accused and sentenced them as hereinbefore mentioned. 6. The accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed appeals before the Session’s Court, Bangalore and the 13th Additional Session Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore by judgment dated 9.5.2008 dismissed the appeals, thereby, confirming the judgment of conviction dated on 9.1.2007 passed by the 14th ACMM, in C.O. No. 26404/2002. In the mean time, being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence of fine imposed on the accused, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition No. 558/2007 before this Court and all these matters are heard together today. 7. Heard Sri B.M. Halaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl. R. P. No. 968 and 969 of 2008 and Sri B.S. Hadimani, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 870/2008 and Sri S. Prahalad, learned Counsel for the complainant in all four matters. 8. Sri B.M. Halaswamy learned Counsel for the accused submits that the complainant has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the cheque in question was given in the form of blank cheque out of a series of 10 cheques issued by the accused to the complainant as per Ex. D4 produced by him for the accused before the trial Court. He submits that the amount of the cheque was not at all decided and there is no consensus so far as the amount of the cheques are concerned and that the complainant has unilaterally filled up one of the blank cheques and produced the same for payment. D4 produced by him for the accused before the trial Court. He submits that the amount of the cheque was not at all decided and there is no consensus so far as the amount of the cheques are concerned and that the complainant has unilaterally filled up one of the blank cheques and produced the same for payment. He submits that on perusal of the documents produced by the accused, it is noticed that there was discussion regarding file reconciliation of the statement of accounts between the complainant and the accused and the matter was still at the negotiation and reconciliation stage in so far as the amount payable by the accused to the complainant is concerned. The amount as shown in the cheque Ex. P2 is not at all the due amount to the complainant by the accused. The cheque, which was presented for the amount was not at all due to the complainant. He has also filed synopsis of arguments. He further submits that the complainant has not at all produced any document to show that the ultimate balance lying in favour of the complainant is the amount of the cheque and, therefore, he submits that the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Session’s Judge is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned Counsel has relied on the following rulings: (i) B. Harikrishna vs. Macro Links Pvt. Ltd. and another, ILR 2000 KAR 2855 (ii) Sathyam Ayyappa Sathyan vs. Yousu and another, 2007 Cri. L.J. 2590 (iii) M/s. Shreyas Agro Services Private Limited vs. Chandrakumar S.B., 2006 (3) KCCR 1779 (iv) M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. vs. Umesh Sharma and another, ILR 2006 KAR 3579 (v) Ashok Yeshwant Badeve vs. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar and another, AIR 2001 SC 1315 (vi) Avon Organics Ltd. vs. Pomeer Products Ltd. and others, 2004 (I) Crimes 567 (vii) Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2003 Cri. L.J. 1988 (Guj) (viii) Voruganti Chinna Gopaiah vs. M/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals and others, 1999 Cri. L.J. 1184 (ix) M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2006 SC 3366 (x) Kamala S. vs. Vidhyadharan M.J. and another, (2007) 5 SCC 264 (xi) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and others, 2006 AIR SCW 3830 (xii) Statement of Accounts-Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs. L.J. 1184 (ix) M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2006 SC 3366 (x) Kamala S. vs. Vidhyadharan M.J. and another, (2007) 5 SCC 264 (xi) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and others, 2006 AIR SCW 3830 (xii) Statement of Accounts-Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs., (2000) 1 SCC 434 (xiii) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla and others, AIR 1998 SC 1406 (xiv) Smt. Chandrakantaben, Narendra Jayantilal Modi vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others, (1989) 2 SCC 630 (xv) State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 SCC 172 (xvi) Chand vs. State of Delhi, 1985 (28) DLT 360 (xvii) K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and another, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1130-31 of 2003 by Supreme Court dated 6.7.2009 10. Sri B.S. Hadimani, learned Counsel for the accused No. 4 Shiva Kumar submits that he adopts the arguments of Sri B.H. Halaswamy and further, submits that conviction passed against A4 is not in accordance with law, in as much as the complainant has not proved the part played by A4 in the presentation or payment of cheque amount. Hence, he submits that A4 is not liable to be convicted. He further submits that A4 retired on 30.4.2001 and the cheque was issued on 31.12.2001 and on the date of issuance of the cheque, he was not at all a partner of Deepa Agro Agencies and, therefore, legally learned Magistrate ought not to have convicted A4. He submits that Exs. D41 to D44 has been produced by the accused to indicate that A4 has ceased, to be as a partner as on the date of the issuance of the cheque and, therefore, to that extent, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. 11. Sri Prahalad learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the trial Court has found that the accused are due to the cheque amount to the complainant and based on the documents produced by the complainant, more particularly Ex. P2 the cheque and Exs. 11. Sri Prahalad learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the trial Court has found that the accused are due to the cheque amount to the complainant and based on the documents produced by the complainant, more particularly Ex. P2 the cheque and Exs. P22 and P23 being the confirmation letters issued by the accused and based on the other documents produced by the complainant the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the accused have issued the cheque for the amount for which it was presented and that when the cheque was presented it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Hence, the accused are convicted by the trial Court. He submits that. Ex. P22 categorically states that accused have promised to pay the amount exceeding Rs. 40,00,000/- and in Ex. P28, the accused have promised to pay the outstanding balance over and above Rs. 55,00,000/- as per their own statement. These documents coupled with the invoices and the other relevant documents including the statement of accounts between the parties, further indicate that the accused are due to the complainant to the amount of cheque and documents produced by the defence further indicates that the accused have sent a fax message on 8.1.2002 showing therein that a sum of Rs. 84,99,666.37 is the closing balance between the complainant and the accused and the said Ex. D3 indicates the customers’ invoices number and the amounts due during the respective dates of the invoices. He submits that Section 139 of the N.I. Act. raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable liability and accused have not discharged the said burden or disproved the said Liability by the evidence adduced before the trial Court. He submits that P.W. 3, Nagesh, who had been examined on behalf of the complainant categorically disputes his signatures found in Ex. D4 (2 numbers) and other documents produced, in defence. In view of the said denial the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act has not been naturally and legally rebutted by the accused and, therefore, the complainant has proved that the accused is due to the amount of the cheque and learned Magistrate has rightly convicted them and sentenced them in accordance with law. 12. In view of the said denial the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act has not been naturally and legally rebutted by the accused and, therefore, the complainant has proved that the accused is due to the amount of the cheque and learned Magistrate has rightly convicted them and sentenced them in accordance with law. 12. Learned Counsel for the complainant, further submits that even the learned Session’s Judge in aforesaid appeals has carefully re-appreciated the evidence on record and has come to an independent conclusion that the accused are liable to the complainant for the cheque amount and the learned Session’s Judge has dismissed the appeals filed by the accused by confirming the order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. He submits that in a revision petition there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidence, it. is the duty of Appellate Court and the Appellate Court exercising its jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and give another independent view. He submits that if there is any illegality or impropriety or any incorrect finding or sentence, it is the Revisional Court which gets jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent order of the Court’s below. In so far as Cri. R.P. No. 558/2007 is concerned, he submits that cheque is dated 31.12.2001 and almost 10 years have lapsed from the date of cheque and that Section 142 of the N.I. Act empowers the trial Court to impose a sentence equal to or double the cheque amount and in view of the facts that the complainant has lost the interest for over a period of 10 years on the cheque amount he submits that the sentence imposed on the accused may be enhanced and adequate sentence may be imposed on the accused in the interest of justice. He has relied on the rulings of: (i) P. Venugopal vs. Madan P. Sarathi, AIR 2009 SC 568 (ii) Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001 SC 3897 (iii) Suresh Kallappa Makavi vs. Marian Bindurao Desai and another, ILR 2008 KAR 3922 (iv) C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another, 2007 SAR (Criminal) 768 (v) A. Sathyanarayana vs. Sri K. Selvam, 2008 (3) KCCR 1930 (vi) M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P.) Ltd. and another, AIR 2002 SC 182 (vii) Syndicate Bank vs. M/s. R.S.R. Engineering Works and others, 2003 SAR (Civil) 599 (viii) Rangappa vs. Mohan, AIR 2010 SCW 2946 13. He further submits that at least to show their bona fides, after having admitted the contents of Exs. P22 and P23 which are letters dated 1.11.2001 and 19.9.2001, the accused have admitted their liability to an extent of Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 55,00,000/- respectively, not a single rupee has been paid by the accused ever since, the date of letters Exs. P22 to P23, which reflects on the bona fides of the accused in honouring their commitment as per Ex P2. Under the circumstances, he submits that the revision petitions filed by the accused may be dismissed and the revision petition filed for enhancement of compensation may be allowed by awarding adequate compensation to the complainant. 14. The complainant whose name is shown as Denocil Crop Protection Private Limited represented by the POA holder has filed the complaint before the learned 14th ACMM, Bangalore on 18.2.2002 arraying M/s. Deepa Agro Agencies, Jayadevappa K, Kallesh G. Shiva Kumar S. and Chandrarashekarappa as accused describing therein that the A1 is a firm and A2 to A5 are partners of the said firm. The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 27.3.2002 and thereafter, took cognizance of the offence against the accused and issued process by order dated 4.2.2002. Thereafter on 15.2.2002, the accusation of A1 and A5 have been recorded and again on 18.5.2002, the accusation of A1 and A2, A4 and A5 have been recorded whereunder the accused have pleaded not guilty to the accusation made by them. Thereafter on 15.2.2002, the accusation of A1 and A5 have been recorded and again on 18.5.2002, the accusation of A1 and A2, A4 and A5 have been recorded whereunder the accused have pleaded not guilty to the accusation made by them. It is stated in the evidence of V.S. Nagesh P.W. 1, that the complainant Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of manufacturing and distribution of world class agro based produce, namely, pesticides and chemicals. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that Al is partnership firm, which is duly represented by partners A2 to A5. It is further in the evidence of P.W. 1 that the A1 was appointed as the Distributors to deal with agro-chemical produce and besides other produce by the complainant company duly authorising the Company to sell products. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1, materials were delivered to the accused which were acknowledged by the accused. However, inspite of repeated request and reminders of the complainant the accused have kept the amount unpaid Accused have issued a cheque to an amount of Rs. 84,94,666/-. It is in the evidence of P.W. 1 that the complainant has presented the said cheque dated 31.12.2001, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Davanagere Branch and the cheque was presented on 15.1.2002 to the Saki Bankers for payment. On the presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement, “Exceeds arrangement and insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It was served on the accused as per Exs. P16 and P17. The complainant has filed complaint before the Court. Complainant has identified Exs. P1 to P26 as the documents supporting the case of the complainant. Further on 27.7.2005, Exs. P27 to P40 has been produced by the complainant showing that the said documents are invoices and Exs. P41 to P48 as the lorry receipts pertaining to the said transaction. Further, on 5.9.2005, the complainant has further produced 5 invoices which are marked as per Exs. P49 to P53 and lorry receipts are market as per Ex. P54. The accused have cross-examined the complainant’s witness and have suggested that the complainant has not produced any statement of accounts to arrive at the cheque amount. In the further cross-examination it has been elicited that Exs. P49 to P53 and lorry receipts are market as per Ex. P54. The accused have cross-examined the complainant’s witness and have suggested that the complainant has not produced any statement of accounts to arrive at the cheque amount. In the further cross-examination it has been elicited that Exs. D1 and D2 have been returned which are dishonoured cheques issued by the accused. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, it is further elicited that Ex. D3 is a fax, confirming the due amount from the accused to the complainant as per their letter dated 8.1.2002 which indicates the accounts from 1.1.2001 to 12.1.2001. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the accused is not due to the complainant for the amount of Rs. 84,99,666/- as on 31.12.2001 and that the cheques which were given to one Siddappareddy, were blank in content and the same were misused by the complainant and false case has been registered against the accused. It is further suggested that the complainant ought to have waited till 15.1.2002, for the payment of the cheque amount and the cheque was issued only as a security for the amount mentioned in the letters dated 25.11.2001 and 25.12.2001 respectively. The accused were questioned regarding the incriminating circumstances against them in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. recorded from the accused whereunder, the accused have denied their liability in respect of the cheque. Thereafter the accused have examined 5 witnesses DWs. 1 to 5 in their defence. In answer to the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused have contended that on 29.9.2000, blank cheques were given as security to the complainant and the said cheques were given to one Siddappa Reddy and they have not committed any offence. 15. DW. 1 is Jayadevappa. He has been examined by the accused who has stated before the Court that he is a partner of accused No. 1 firm and that they are dealing with the business of certain produce and the accused No. 1 is authorised distributors of the above produce of the complainant Company. The area of distribution is being changed from time to time. It is in the evidence of DW. 1 that the invoices were being prepared in file name of Al firm and they used to distribute the goods supplied by the complainant Company. He has stated that it is true that Ex. The area of distribution is being changed from time to time. It is in the evidence of DW. 1 that the invoices were being prepared in file name of Al firm and they used to distribute the goods supplied by the complainant Company. He has stated that it is true that Ex. P2 is the cheque drawn on Union Bank of India, Davanagere Branch and the cheque is related to the cash credit account opened in Union Bank of India. Further he states that signature in Ex. P2(a) is the signature of Chandrashekarappa who is A5 the partner of the firm. It is elicited that they have not received any notice containing the information at Ex. P6. It is also in the evidence of DW. 1 that they have not instructed any clerks working in Al firm to receive any notices in the absence of any of the partners of Al firm. It is further elicited in the cross-examination that he is aware that the firm has got liability of a debtor to the complainant Company. He has further admitted the contents of Exs. P22 and P23 which is written on behalf of A1. firm. When a specific question is asked that he has not informed the complainant Company about the re-constitution/retirement of partner of the company, he has answered that as per the requirement of law, the accused are not required to inform the complainant. He has further denied the suggestion that he was aware of the contents of Ex. P6 and, therefore, he says that there is no question of making the payment since he is not aware of the contents of the notice. Further he has admitted that the addresses found in Exs. P18 to 21 are correct addresses and similarly, has admitted the address of Ex. P14 is also correct. 16. DW. 2 Shiva Kumar is another accused and he has been examined before Court to say that he has produced. Ex. D42 which is the Praja Vadhi daily newspaper of Davanagere edition. He has stated that he has retired from the firm on 30.4.2001 as per the retirement deed Ex. D41. He has further stated that he has written a letter to the complainant Company under Certificate of Posting which is marked as Ex. D43. He has also informed as per Ex. He has stated that he has retired from the firm on 30.4.2001 as per the retirement deed Ex. D41. He has further stated that he has written a letter to the complainant Company under Certificate of Posting which is marked as Ex. D43. He has also informed as per Ex. D44 to the Bank regarding his retirement from the firm and has produced the paper publication dated 5.5.2001, in this connection as per Ex. D45. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that since 1992, he was working as the partner of the firm and looking after the affairs of the firm. He has stated that he has not taken permission from the complainant Company while entering into the agreement. Ex. D41, nor the Company is party to Ex. D41, and admitted that there is no tripartite partners with the creditors. He has admitted. Ex. D4 dated 17.4.1999. During the period when Ex. D4 was issued, he was partner of Al firm. He has admitted the contents of Ex. P6 notice. However, he has denied that accused Kallesh has sent Ex. D3 to the complainant though he has admitted the contents of Ex. P2 cheque, which was issued by the firm and also admitted the account number in the cheque. 17. DW. 3 Chandrashekar is the accused No. 5 who has also stated that he knows the entire transaction of the accused firm. He has also admitted that he was a partner of the firm since 1992. He has further admitted that the signature in the cheque as per Ex. P2 A is his signature and has been issued for the business transaction by the firm. DW. 4 is Kallesh, who is another accused to this case, though he has secured an order of quashing the proceedings against him. He has appeared before the Court and examined himself as DW. 3. He has stated that he has retired from the firm on 30.4.2001 and he has denied his connection with Ex. D3 or Ex. P2. In the cross-examination, the signature of A3 and A4 was confronted to DW. 4 and signature is admitted and vakalath is marked as Ex. P56, Ex. P57 is the partnership deed produced by the complainant in the cross-examination of DW. 4, which has been admitted by the accused. It is suggested to him that Ex. P57 does not indicate that DW. 4 is sleeping partner. 4 and signature is admitted and vakalath is marked as Ex. P56, Ex. P57 is the partnership deed produced by the complainant in the cross-examination of DW. 4, which has been admitted by the accused. It is suggested to him that Ex. P57 does not indicate that DW. 4 is sleeping partner. However, he has denied the said fact saying that he does not know how to read and write English and he does know the contents of Ex. P57 and reiterates as the sleeping partner of the A1 firm, DW. 5 is one H.B. Shiva Kumar who was working as accountant in the accused firm till April 2002. He has identified Ex. D40 which is the reconciliation statement of the firm with the complainant. In the cross-examination, he has stated that Ex. D40 brought into existence at Chennai and said Ex. D40 indicates the transactions till 30.7.1999 and said transaction is in respect of supply of pesticides by the complainant to the accused firm and as per Ex. D40, a sum of Rs. 25,89,632.69 was the balance outstanding against the Al firm. 18. So far as the documents produced by the complainant are concerned, Ex. P1 is the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant Company in favour of P.W. 1 V.S. Nagesh. Ex. P2 is the disputed cheque. Ex. P3 is the endorsement of Union Bank of India informing that the cheque Ex. P2 has been dishonoured for insufficient funds. Ex. P4 is the intimation to the A1 Firm regarding the dishonour of the cheque. Ex. P5 is cheque returned-slip issued by ICICI Bank. Ex. P6 is the legal notice issued under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Exs. P.7 to 11 are the registered post receipts addressed to K. Jayadevappa, Al. firm Chandra Shekar, Shivakumar and Kallesh respectively and Ex. P12 is receipt of postal department for under Certificate of Posting for having issued notice to the accused, Exs. P13 to 16 are courier receipts including proof of service on the accused firm. Exs. P17 to 21 are the unserved registered post covers. Ex. P22 is the letter dated 1.11.2001 in which the accused have promised to pay over due balance of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 25.11.2001, Rs. 25,00,000/- on 25.12.2001 and balance on or before 15.1.2002. The said letter has been apparently signed by Siddappa Reddy Ex. Exs. P17 to 21 are the unserved registered post covers. Ex. P22 is the letter dated 1.11.2001 in which the accused have promised to pay over due balance of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 25.11.2001, Rs. 25,00,000/- on 25.12.2001 and balance on or before 15.1.2002. The said letter has been apparently signed by Siddappa Reddy Ex. P23 is letter dated 19.9.2001 in which accused have promised to pay Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs on or before 25.9.2001, Rs. 20 lakhs on or before 15.10.2001 and the balance amount on or before 30.10.2001, which has apparently been received by B.G. Siddappa Reddy as found on Ex. P23. Ex. P24 is the distribution agreement between the complainant and Al firm Ex. P25 is the application for substitution of complainant Power of Attorney holder to represent the proceedings before the trial Court by one V.S. Nagesh Ex. P25 is the incorporation certificate of the complainant Company, namely, DOW Agro Sciences India Private Limited (formerly DE-NOCIL Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.) Ex. P26 is the Memorandum of Association of the said Company Exs. P27 to 53 are the invoices raised from the complainant Company addressed to the Al firm. Ex. P54 is the lorry receipts addressed from the complainant Company to M/s. Deepa Agro Agencies, Davanagere. Ex. P55 is the statement of accounts by the complainant Company in respect of Al firm. Ex. P56 is the vakalath signed by the accused before the Magistrate Court Ex. P57 is the partnership deed. 19. Exs. D1 and D2 are the acknowledgment of the dishonoured cheques. Ex. D3 is the statement as mentioned above, Ex. D4 is dated 29.9.2000, the letter issued by the accused firm addressed to the complainant Company informing therein that 10 blank cheques of Union Bank of India bearing Nos. 452851 to 452860 have been enclosed alongwith the said letter. The said letter contains the signature of one Siddappa Reddy on 29.9.2000, which is marked as Ex. D4 (a). Another letter dated 17.4.1999 is also marked as Ex. D4 by mistake which indicates that the accused has written to the complainant to present one cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- and another cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.4.1999 with a further request to send the statement of accounts from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. Ex. D5 to the letter dated 29.2.2000, addressed by the accused to the complainant requesting the complainant to present two cheques for Rs. 5,00,000/- and another cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.4.1999 with a further request to send the statement of accounts from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. Ex. D5 to the letter dated 29.2.2000, addressed by the accused to the complainant requesting the complainant to present two cheques for Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Ex. D6 is another letter requesting the complainant not to present the cheque between 10th and 15th November 1999 Ex D7 is the letter dated. 31.1.2000 requesting the complainant to present one cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 31.1.2000 and another cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 10.2.2000, Ex. D8 is the letter including cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 30.11.1999 in favour of the complainant Company Ex. D9 is another letter requesting to present one cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 31.5.1999, in favour of the complainant. Ex. D10 is another letter enclosing five cheques in which one cheque is for Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and the remaining 4 among cheques (blank cheques), Ex. D12 is yet another letter requesting to present one cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/- on 30.11.2000. Ex. D13 is a letter dated September 18th 2001 addressed to the Union Bank of India, Davanagere Ex. D14 is another letter from accused to complainant dated 26.5.2000 including the xerox copies of all the claims and detailed statement between the complainant and the accused whereunder balance of Rs. 14,18,013.39 is shown Ex. D16 Is a letter addressed to the complainant by the accused including a. demand draft for Rs. 35,00,000/- in favour of the complainant Ex. D17 is a letter dated 7.2.2000 stating that the accused has stopped operations with the State Bank of Mysore and they have issued stop payment instructions. Ex. D18 is another intimation regarding dishonour of cheque. Ex. D19 is the letter addressed to the complainant. Exs. D20, 21 and 22 are the letters showing that the accused have sent the cheques to the complainant, Exs. D23 to 34 are the letters from complainant Company addressed to the accused Exs. D35 to 39 is a letter regarding transaction Ex. D40 is the reconciliation statement produced by the accused. 20. It is from the evidence of the above witnesses and the documents produced by the complainant and the accused that the learned Magistrate has found that the documents Exs. D35 to 39 is a letter regarding transaction Ex. D40 is the reconciliation statement produced by the accused. 20. It is from the evidence of the above witnesses and the documents produced by the complainant and the accused that the learned Magistrate has found that the documents Exs. D4 to D16 and D18 to D39 are created by the accused for the purpose of their defence and that the accused have not proved the genuineness of the said documents. Learned Magistrate has further found that Exs. P22 to P23 indicate that there is a legally enforceable liability in favour of the complainant against the accused and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the accused are due to the complainant for the cheque amount and hence, the accused are convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. In the appeal before the Sessions Court, the learned Session’s Judge has reappreciated the entire evidence on record and has held that in view of the admission of the transactions between the complainant and the accused and also since there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the cheque, the case of the complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the presumption available to the complainant in case of an offence punishable under Section 139 of N.I. Act has not been rebutted by the accused and, therefore, the learned Session’s Judge has on a thorough reappreciation of evidence on record found that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and, therefore, he has confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. 21. I have carefully gone through the entire materials on record and I have also taken note of the submission of the learned. Counsel for both parties. It is seen from the documents Exs. P22 and P23 and also the admission of the accused before the trial Court that the issuance of cheque and the liability so far as the transactions between the complainant and accused are concerned, it is proved by the evidence of record. The documents produced by the defence have not been able to rebut the presumption available to the complainant who is the holder and payee of the cheque. The documents of transaction produced in terms of Exs. The documents produced by the defence have not been able to rebut the presumption available to the complainant who is the holder and payee of the cheque. The documents of transaction produced in terms of Exs. D1 to 40 by the accused, instead of holding the accused further corroborated that there was business transaction and that cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant, in respect of the business transactions and as and when accused instructed for presenting the cheques the cheques were presented for payment. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the complainant has proved the legally enforceable liability against the accused and in its favour. 22. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the Appellate Court, I do not find any error or illegality in the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court or that of the Appellate Court and there is no material to interfere with the order of the Courts below and, therefore, the order of the Courts below are entitled to be confirmed. Therefore, the judgment of conviction passed against the accused is hereby confirmed. 23. So far as Crl. R.P. No. 558/2007 is concerned, it is seen that the cheque is dated 31.12.2001, however, it has to be seen that both the parties were litigating before the trial Court and the fact that the parties were litigating before the trial Court cannot be found fault with. It is true that 10 years have passed from the date of issuance of the cheque but contest of the accused is bona fide and under the circumstances, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the complainant is entitled to additional compensation in terms of at least interest on the cheque, in view of the huge amount involved in this case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter Crl. R.P. No. 558/2007 filed for the enhancement of compensation is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. 24. In that view of the matter Crl. R.P. No. 558/2007 filed for the enhancement of compensation is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. 24. So far as the Criminal Revision Petition No. 870/2008 filed by Sri Shiva Kumar A4 before the trial Court is concerned, he is the partner of the firm and that no document is produced by him to prove that be has sent a notice to the complainant before retirement from the firm and that he has severed his relationship from A1 firm. Hence, there are no grounds to hold that he is not liable to be found guilty and, therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by accused No. 4 Shivkumar is also liable to be dismissed. 25. Hence all petitions are dismissed.