Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner herein / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1947 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.483 of 2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, dated 07.12.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, dated 30.10.2006. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is a partnership firm run in the name and style of Cibi Knitting Mills. The accused is the proprietor of the firm Anand Textile Corporation. During the course of business transactions between the accused and complainant, the accused had placed a purchase order of banians with the complainant through Saran Traders on 12.02.2002. As per supplies effected on 08.03.2001, 15.03.2001 through bill Nos.688 and 711 respectively, the accused had to pay a sum of Rs.2,41,050/- and a sum of Rs.1,49,859/-, i.e., in total a sum of Rs.3,90,909/- towards the balance dues, to the complainant. The complainant sent a bill for Rs.3,90,909/- to the accused firm, viz,. Anand Textile Corporation. A deduction of Rs.282 was made on the bill as per bill No.688 for shortage of a dozen banians, as per letter dated 28.03.2001 and a deduction of Rs.252 was made on the bill listed as Bill No.711 for shortage of banians as per letter dated 15.03.2002, i.e., in total a deduction of Rs.534/- was made on the total amount of Rs.3,90,909/- and the balance amount of the dues payable by the accused was Rs.3,90,375/-. In order to discharge the said debt, the accused had issued two cheques to the complainant, but both the cheques were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. The accused took back the returned cheques and instead issues three cheques dated 25.10.2001, 30.01.2001 and 05.11.2001, each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque dated 10.11.2001 for a sum of Rs.90,375/-, drawn on Canara Bank, Erode Banch. When the complainant deposited the cheque dated 25.10.2001 for encashment with his bankers on 08.03.2002, with his bankers viz., Federal Bank, Tiruppur, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement" on 12.03.2002. When the complainant presented the cheques dated 30.01.2001 and 05.11.2001 for encashment with his bankers on 11.03.2002 and 12.03.2002, it were returned unpaid with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement", on 14.03.2002. When the complainant presented the cheques dated 30.01.2001 and 05.11.2001 for encashment with his bankers on 11.03.2002 and 12.03.2002, it were returned unpaid with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement", on 14.03.2002. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 20.03.2002, which was received by the accused on 21.03.2003. The accused sent a reply notice dated 28.03.2002 making false allegations. Hence, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, three witnesses were examined and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney dated 13.04.2002 given to P.W.1 by complainant firm to adduce evidence, Ex.P2-purchase order dated 13.02.2001, Ex.P3-cheque (No.202951) dated 25.10.2001 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P4-cheque (No.202952) dated 30.10.2001 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P5-cheque (No.202953) dated 30.10.2001 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.P6-cheque dated 10.11.2001 for Rs.90,375/-, Ex.P7-return memo dated 09.03.2002, Ex.P8-return memo dated 09.03.2002, Ex.P9-Memo of Federal Bank dated 25.10.2002, Ex.P10-memo of Federal Bank dated 14.03.2002, Ex.P11-Memo of Canara Bank dated 05.11.2001, Ex.P12-Memo of Canara Bank dated 10.11.2001, Ex.P13-copy of lawyer's notice dated 20.03.2002, Ex.P14-proof of delivery dated 20.03.2002, Ex.P15-reply notice dated 28.03.2000, Ex.P16-complaint dated 18.04.2002, Ex.P17 and Ex.P19-copy of application form issued at bank while starting the account of accused, Ex.P18-copy of specimen signature form of accused, Ex.P20-copy of bank account statement of accused, Ex.P21-copy of extract of cheque return register, Ex.P22-copy of extract of debit advice register issued to complainant, Ex.P23-letter given by the sister concern of the accused firm, viz., Saran Traders dated 28.03.2001, Ex.P24-Document showing return of cheques issued by sister concern and issuance of cheques by the accused, Ex.P25-letter sent by Suran Traders showing shortage in supplies effected. On the side of the accused, the accused was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.R1, R2 and R3, viz., Ex.R1-letter sent by complainant, Ex.R2-copy of invoice dated 08.03.2001 and Ex.R3-letter dated 20.11.2001. 4. P.W.1, Chinnasamy had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney of the complainant's firm and in support of his evidence had marked Ex.P1, the power of attorney letter. P.W.1 adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence had marked Exs.P1 to P6. 5. 4. P.W.1, Chinnasamy had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney of the complainant's firm and in support of his evidence had marked Ex.P1, the power of attorney letter. P.W.1 adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence had marked Exs.P1 to P6. 5. P.W.3, the Officer of Federal Bank, Mangalam Road Branch, Tiruppur had adduced evidence that the complainant had an account in their bank in the name of their firm Cibi Knitting Mills as O.D.E.C.No.51. He deposed that the Exs.P3 and P4 were presented for collection on 07.03.2002 and 09.03.2002 and that Exs.P5 and P6 were presented for collection on 11.03.2002. In support of his evidence, he had marked the extract of cheque collection register as Ex.P1. He deposed that the said cheques were returned on presentation due to insufficient funds and in support of his evidence he had marked the extract of cheque return register as Ex.P22. 6. P.W.2-Sundarajan, the officer of Canara Bank, Park Road, Erode Branch had adduced evidence that the accused had maintained an O.D. Account in their bank in the name of the firm ' Anand Textile Corporation" and that the account number is O.C.C.No.25304. He deposed that the exhibits marked as Exs.P3 to Ex.P6 had been issued by their bank to the accused. He deposed that when Exs.P3 to P5 were presented at their bank for collection at their bank on 08.03.2002, 11.03.2002 and 12.03.2002, it were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. In support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P17 to P19 listed above and had also marked the copy of bank account statement of accused as Ex.P20, wherein it is seen that the accused did not have sufficient funds in his account to cover the payment of cheques. 7. R.W.1, the accused had deposed that he is the Proprietor of Anand Textiles and had admitted business transactions existed between complainant and accused. He deposed that he had received the letter from the complainant dated 20.11.2001 regarding return of cheque (Ex.R3). A letterhead of the complainant firm, purported to contain a letter dated 08.06.2001 addressed to M/s.Surans Traders agreeing to take back the goods if sent within 18 days in the same condition was marked as Ex.R1 during cross-examination of P.W.1. He deposed that he had received the letter from the complainant dated 20.11.2001 regarding return of cheque (Ex.R3). A letterhead of the complainant firm, purported to contain a letter dated 08.06.2001 addressed to M/s.Surans Traders agreeing to take back the goods if sent within 18 days in the same condition was marked as Ex.R1 during cross-examination of P.W.1. A xerox copy of invoice dated 15.03.2001 sent by the complainant firm to Anand Tex Corporation was marked through P.W.1. as Ex.R2. 8. It is seen that the accused has admitted the business transaction with the complainant and the fact that he issued the cheques in Exs.P3 to P6 towards the amount due to the complainant for supply of goods. The accused would deny his liability for an offence under Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the grounds that the goods supplied were of inferior quality, that he addressed the complainant for return of goods, that the cheques were earlier presented and dishonoured and that the complainant issued a notice in Ex.R3 on 20.11.2001 and as such, no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted based on the second cause of action, on the notice in Ex.P13. Though P.W.1 had denied the letter written in Ex.R1 by the complainant firm to M/s.Surans Traders, a scrutiny of its contents would show that it was actually written by the complainant. As P.W.1 was not in service in the firm as on 08.06.2001, he is not competent to speak about it. By referring to a letter from M/s.Surans Traders and the telephonic conversation regarding the return of goods, it is stated in the letter that the goods should be returned within 18 days therefrom in the same condition as delivered, so that the lot can be moved in the market. However, the accused has not produced a copy of letter addressed by M/s.Surans Traders and as such the reasons for their return of goods could not be ascertained. But, it is seen that the accused / R.W.1 himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he exported the entire goods to Srilanka and that he has not returned the goods to the complainant. But, it is seen that the accused / R.W.1 himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he exported the entire goods to Srilanka and that he has not returned the goods to the complainant. It is seen that the accused has not produced any document to prove that he took up the question of quality of the goods with the complainant at any point of time before the reply notice in Ex.P15, dated 28.03.2002. After the letter in Ex.R1, the accused has not chosen to return the goods. As such, the learned Magistrate observed that the plea of the accused regarding quality of goods is not a bonafide one and opined that the accused had raised such a plea as an afterthought after receipt of legal notice in Ex.P13. The accused has produced the post card letter in Ex.R3 in order to prove that the complainant has sent the said letter informing the dishonour and demanding payment. It was contended on the side of the accused that Ex.R3 created a cause of action for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that no complaint could be filed, based on subsequent cause of action. On scrutiny of Ex.R3, postcard, it is seen that it is fully written by hand and addressed to the accused with his residential address. It does not bear any rubber stamp seal of the complainant company and the name of the person, who wrote the letter. It is seen that the accused has shown the card to P.W.1 for the first time on 25.09.2006, when he was in the witness box for cross-examination. It is seen that the accused has not mentioned about Ex.R3 either in the reply notice in Ex.P15 or during the first questioning or in his replies to the questioning under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. on 12.01.2004. The fact that the accused has kept Ex.R3 as a secret from its receipt at Erode on 21.11.2001 till its production during the trial on 25.09.2006 would create doubt about is genuineness as the complainant firm has made all their correspondence with the accused only by using their printed letterheads. As such, the learned Magistrate, held that the postcard letter in Ex.R3 without any seal or printed letter cannot be taken as genuine. As such, the learned Magistrate, held that the postcard letter in Ex.R3 without any seal or printed letter cannot be taken as genuine. Hence, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence held the accused guilty of offfence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for three months. 9. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.483 of 2006 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Coimbatoreat Tiruppur. The learned judge after scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and on perusal of the trial Court's order, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant / accused has preferred the present revision. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the Courts below failed to see that the case of the complainant is that four cheques, Exs.P3 to P6, were alleged to have been dishonoured and each dishonour of cheque constitutes only one offence and therefore, the Courts below are not entitled to try all the four cheques in one trial as the accused can be charged and tried at one trial for three offence only. It was pointed out that the Court below failed to see that the complainant is a partnership firm but the certificate of registration to show the firm is a registered one has not been marked. It was pointed out that the Courts below failed to see that the power agent of the complainant firm joined the concern during the year 2002 only but the alleged transactions took place between the years 1999 to 2001 and hence, the Courts below ought to have come to the conclusion that the said power agent is not competent enough to give evidence. It was also pointed out that the Courts below failed to see that the complaint filed was based on second cause of action and on this ground alone, the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set-aside. It was also pointed out that the Courts below failed to see that the complaint filed was based on second cause of action and on this ground alone, the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set-aside. It was contended that the Courts below after having found that Ex.R1 was a letter written by the complainant firm to M/s.Surana Traders ought to have come to the conclusion that no offence was made out and should have dismissed the complaint. 12. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it is an admitted fact that the accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,90,375/-. In order to discharge the legally enforceable debt, the accused had issued four cheques on various dates. The complainant had marked relevant documents in order to prove the legally enforceable debt. Further, the cheques given by the accused were dishonoured on presentation. In order to prove the same, the bank officials were also examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The contention of the accused is only a strategy to evade payment of cheque amount. The complainant has proved the case against the accused. Therefore, he is entitled to receive compensation from the accused, but the Courts below have not considered it. 13. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, 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 complainant had proved his case against the accused. Therefore, he is entitled to receive compensation from the accused. As such, this Court directs the accused to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as it is found to be appropriate. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for two years imposed on the accused is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence from two years simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The accused has to either pay the said compensation amount or to undergo three months simple imprisonment. This Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, to issue bailable warrant and secure the accused into judicial custody forthwith, in order to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The accused has to either pay the said compensation amount or to undergo three months simple imprisonment. This Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, 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.2,00,000/-into the credit of C.C.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur before being remanded into judicial custody, the accused would be set at liberty and the sentence of simple imprisonment of three months imposed 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. If the accused pays the compensation amount, the fine amount of a sum of Rs.5,000/-is to be refunded to him. This order has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 14. Resultantly, the above revision is partly allowed with the above modifications. Consequently, the conviction and judgment passed in C.A.No.483 of 2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, dated 07.12.2007, confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, dated 30.10.2006 is modified. Accordingly ordered.