Judgment The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.995 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.283 of 2002, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, for purchase of land. In order to discharge part payment of the said debt, the accused gave two cheques dated 30.11.1996 and 30.12.1996, drawn on Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, each for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheques for encashment with his bankers, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai on 31.12.1996 and 02.01.1997, it were returned with an endorsement of "funds insufficient". The complainant issued a legal notice on 17.01.1997 to the accused and the same was received by the accused on 24.01.1997. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused failed to effect payment on the cheques. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney, Exs.P2 and P3-cheques, Ex.P4-return memo Ex.P5-debit advice, Ex.P6-copy of lawyer's notice, Ex.P7-acknowledgment card, Ex.P8-power of attorney given to P.W.2, Ex.P9-power of attorney given to P.W.3, Ex.P10-copy of bank account statement of accused. On side of the accused, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 viz,. Ex.R1-certificate issued to the accused and Ex.R2-certificate to show that he is proprietor of Aarthi Exports. 4. P.W.1, Kannan had adduced evidence that he is the Secretary in the complainant's firm and that the power of attorney given to him by his firm had been marked as Ex.P2. P.W.1 adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence had marked exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P7. 5. 4. P.W.1, Kannan had adduced evidence that he is the Secretary in the complainant's firm and that the power of attorney given to him by his firm had been marked as Ex.P2. P.W.1 adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence had marked exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P7. 5. P.W.2, Maniraj had adduced evidence that he is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Nungambakkam and that the power of attorney given to him by the Manager has been marked as Ex.P8. He deposed that the complainant had a current account in their bank and that when Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 were presented at their bank for encashment, it was sent to Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar for collection and that it were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. 6. P.W.3, Balachandran had adduced evidence that he is the computer maintenance officer of Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar Branch and that the power of attorney given to him by his bank to adduce evidence had been marked as Ex.P9. P.W.3 deposed that the accused had a current account in their bank and that when Exs.P2 and P3 cheques were presented at their bank for collection, it were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P10, the bank account statement of accused. 7. R.W.1, Ramesh had adduced evidence that he is the proprietor of Aarthi Exports and that the certificate issued to him by cotton textiles board promotion council had been marked as Ex.R1 and that the certificate was presented to him as he was the Manager of the said Aarthi Exports and that a certificate had been issued to him by the Department of Industries and Commerce on account of his being the Manager of the Aarthi Exports (Ex.R2) and that the certificate has been addressed to No.7, Poonamalle High Road, Maduravoyal. R.W.1 deposed that the said cheques Exs.P2 and P3 had not been signed by him and that it had not been issued on behalf of his company and that no other company exists in the address of No.7, P.H. Road, Maduravoyal except his company. R.W.1 deposed that the said cheques Exs.P2 and P3 had not been signed by him and that it had not been issued on behalf of his company and that no other company exists in the address of No.7, P.H. Road, Maduravoyal except his company. R.W.1 deposed that the notice addressed to his company had been received by one of his employees and that a reply notice was not given as the notice sent had nothing to do with his company. It had been contended on the side of the accused that the power of attorney, marked as Ex.P1, given to P.W.1 had been given by the Managing Director of the complainant's firm through a letter and that the copy of the company's Board of Resolution of Directors had not been produced to authenticate the same, and that it had been sent without the consent of other partners and that the accused is also one of the partners of the complainant's firm, and as such hascontended that the complaint was not maintainable. However, the learned Magistrate rejected this contention by holding that any person who is responsible for the day to day affairs of the said company can file the complaint. It was contended on the side of the accused that the said Aarthi Exports is a proprietary concern and not a partnership concern, as projected in the complaint and that the sole proprietor of Aarthi Exports was the father of the accused, viz., Ramesh Chand. It is seen that the father of the accused had also been examined as R.W.1 and he had marked Exs.R1 and R2 in support of the above contentions. The learned Magistrate observed that the firm Aarthi Exports had not been listed as a party in the said complaint and that only the name of the accused along with his designation had been mentioned in the said complaint. As such, the learned Magistrate opined that merely because the accused had been addressed wrongly as a partner in the said Aarthi Exports, it would not make the complaint not maintainable. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused had admitted issuance of two cheques to the complainant. As such, the learned Magistrate opined that merely because the accused had been addressed wrongly as a partner in the said Aarthi Exports, it would not make the complaint not maintainable. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused had admitted issuance of two cheques to the complainant. Hence, the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and directed the accused to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant as per Section 357(2) of Cr. P.C. 8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.283 of 2002, before the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. It was contended on the side of the appellant that no notice as per the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act was served on the appellant and that Ex.P1, power of attorney holder has no power to give evidence as the other partners including the appellant were not party to execution of Ex.P1. It was pointed out that the cheque (Ex.P2) was given by Paresh Industries by R.K. Paresh, Proprietor and that the case has been on the file of trial Court as R.K. Paresh, Aarthi Exports. It was pointed out that Ex.P5, notice was also sent to R.K. Paresh, partner Aarthi Exports. It was contended that when the cheque was issued as Proprietor, the concern is not deemed to be legal entity and prosecution cannot be maintained against it and hence complaint has to be dismissed. 9. The learned judge on observing that the cheques Exs.P2 and P3 had been given by the accused, in his individual capacity, in favour of the complainant even though he has signed as proprietor of Paresh Industries and the company seal had been affixed. 10. Hence, the learned judge, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction, sentence and compensation imposed by the trial Court. 11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant / accused has preferred the present revision. 12. 10. Hence, the learned judge, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction, sentence and compensation imposed by the trial Court. 11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant / accused has preferred the present revision. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in the grounds of revision that the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to see that the complainant failed to give statutory notice to the signatory of the cheques R.K. Paresh, Proprietor of Paresh Industries, who issued the cheques and have instead taken notice to one Aarthi Exports, a proprietary concern of J.K. Ramesh Chand having its office at 307, P.H. Road, Maduravoil, Chennai, who is in no way connected with the cheques or the transaction between the complainant and accused. Mere issuance of the notice in the name of accused at the false address, which belongs to a third party proprietary concern cannot be taken as proof that a notice as contemplated under law has been issued. It was pointed out that the Courts failed to note that in the sworn statement, dated 12.03.1997 of the complainant, no mention has been made as to the relationship of Aarthi Exports and R.K. Paresh as partner or otherwise. 13. It was contended that in the deposition of P.W.3, it was stated that "the cheques received by their Branch, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch on 13.10.1999 and at that time only Rs.9,90,861.71 paise was in the accused account and so the cheques returned", whereas the value of the cheques returned in all were Rs.5,00,000/-. 14. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the impugned judgments of the Courts below, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for convicting the accused. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence from one year simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. However, the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Courts below is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). The accused has to either pay the said compensation amount or to undergo three months simple imprisonment. However, the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Courts below is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). The accused has to either pay the said compensation amount or to undergo three months simple imprisonment. This Court directs the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai – 8, to issue bailable warrant and secure the accused into judicial custody forthwith, in order to undergo three months simple imprisonment. If the accused remits the said compensation amount of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) into the credit of C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai – 8, before being remanded into judicial custody, the accused would be set at liberty and the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months on the accused would not be operated upon any further. If the accused deposits the said amount, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the same after filing a Memo before the trial Court. This order has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 15. Resultantly, the above revision is disposed of with the above modifications. Consequently, the conviction and judgment passed in C.A.No.283 of 2002, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 24.02.2006, confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.1584 of 1997, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai – 8, dated 06.09.2012 is modified. Accordingly ordered.