Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.2070 of 2004 against the judgment made in C.A.No.173 of 2004, on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.38 of 2002, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur. 2. The respondent/complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is a partnership firm represented by his partners and power of attorney holder. The accused is the proprietor of the concern M/s. Everest Knit, engaged in the business of the stock and sale of hosiery goods and had credit dealings with the complainant by way of purchasing hosiery goods. As per the books of account, the accused has to pay a sum of Rs.5,03,743/-to the complainant. In order to clear a part payment of the debt, the accused has issued seven cheques to the complainant. Out of seven cheques, three cheques dated 05.07.2001, 06.09.2001 and 06.08.2001 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-respectively, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tiruppur Branch, were deposited for encashment with the complainant's bankers, viz., Federal Bank Limited, Tiruppur Branch on 12.09.2001. But, it were returned unpaid with an endorsement of "payment stopped by the drawer". The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 19.09.2001 which was received by the accused on 20.09.2001. As the accused did not effect payment of the cheque amount, even after receipt of notice, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, two witnesses were examined and 45 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P45, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney dated 11.02.2001, Ex.P2-copy of statement of account of complainant's firm from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2002, Exs.P3 to P22-invoices (series), Exs.P23 to P28-delivery notice (series), Ex.P29-cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 05.07.2001, Ex.P30-cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-, dated 06.09.2001, Ex.P31-cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-dated 06.08.2001, Exs.P32, P33 and P34, return memos dated 12.09.2001, Exs.P35, P36 and P37-debit advice dated 13.09.2001, Ex.P38-acknowledgment card, Ex.P39-copy of lawyer's notice dated 19.09.2001, Ex.P40-complaint dated 22.10.2001, Ex.P41-bank account statement of accused dated 18.07.2002, Ex.P42-copy of extract of cheque return register dated 18.07.2002, Ex.P43-copy of bank account opening form of banker's for accused, Ex.P44-specimen signature in form of accused dated 03.08.1999 and Ex.P45-Form 'A' register of firms dated 13.10.2003. On the side of the accused, one exhibit was marked as Ex.R1, stop payment advice given by accused to his bank dated 12.09.2001. 4. P.W.1, the partner of the complainant's firm, viz., Preethi Fashions adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney holder of the complainant and in support of his evidence had marked the power of attorney deed dated 11.10.2001 as Ex.P1. He deposed that the accused, during the course of doing banian business with the complainant, had to pay a balance of Rs.5,03,743/- to the complainant, and in support of this evidence he had marked the statement of accounts taken from the computer as Exs.P2, P3 to P12 in the carbon copy of invoice, by which, the accused purchased goods from the complainant. Exs.P13 to P18 is the confirmed copies given by the accused after consultation with P.W.1. for Exs.P3 to P12. Originals of Exs.P3 to P18 are with the accused. Exs.P19 to P28 is the carbon copies of the delivery notes by which the accused took delivery of the goods, as per the invoices. The original delivery notes are given to the accused. P.W.1 deposed that when the cheques marked as Exs.P29, 30 and 31 were presented in the complainant's bank, viz., Federal Bank, Tirupur Branch, the cheques were returned with an endorsement of "payment stopped by drawer". The return memos of the accused bank was marked as Exs.P32 to P34 and the debit advice given by complainant's bank was marked as Exs.P35 to P37. Ex.P38 is the postal acknowledgment by which the accused received the legal notice and the office copy of the legal notice is Ex.P39. Ex.45 is the registration certificate of the complainant's firm. The accused cross-examined the P.W.1 on the line that there is no signature in Exs.P3 to P12 and that there is no acknowledgment in Exs.P13 to P19. P.W.1 was also questioned that the signature of the accused is not found in the postal acknowledgment of legal notice. 5. P.W.2, the Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce deposed that the accused had a current account in the name of their firm and that the account number is 480 and that the accused had cheque facilities in their bank. He deposed that the cheque leaves marked as Exs.P29, P30 and P31 were issued by their bank to the accused on 12.09.2001. He deposed that the cheque leaves marked as Exs.P29, P30 and P31 were issued by their bank to the accused on 12.09.2001. He deposed that when the said cheques were presented for collection at their bank, it were returned unpaid for the reason "payment stopped by drawer" and that the balance in the account of accused at the time was Rs.37,373.57/-. In support of his evidence, he had marked the certified copy of statement of account from 01.04.2001 to 30.06.2002 as Ex.P41, extract of cheque return register as Ex.P42, the xerox copy of application given by the accused to the bank as Ex.P43 and the certified copy of the specimen signature form as Ex.P44. The stop payment letter given by accused to the bank was marked as Ex.R1. 6. It is seen that the accused had admitted his signatures contained in the cheques marked as Exs.P29, P30, P31. Exs.P3 to P28 are the documents marked by the complainant. These documents consist of invoices, quotations and delivery notes. It was argued on the side of the accused that the quotations are not in the letter pad of the accused and does not contain the address of the accused. It was also pointed out that the quotations were not produced along with the complaint and they were produced only at the time of trial; and that the rubber stamp affixed in the documents do not belong to the accused. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the said contentions as the accused himself had admitted the business transaction and he had pleaded that he paid the dues to the complainant. However, it is seen that the accused had not placed any material to show payment of the said debt. Hence, the learned Magistrate after 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 a period of two years and also directed him to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. 7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.173 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.173 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. It was contended that the invoice copy from Exs.P3 to P18 and the delivery note in Exs.P19 to P28 does not contain the signature of the appellant and hence the quotation is not in order. It was contended that the cheques were not issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is seen from scrutiny of Ex.R1 that the appellant himself had stated in the body of the letter that the seven cheques including the three cheques were issued to the respondent company for their job work only and that it was issued for security purpose. It was stated that as the overseas buyer had stated that the goods were substandard in quality, the appellant / accused had given instruction to P.W.2 through Ex.R1 to "stop payment" to the respondent / complainant's cheques, viz., Exs.P29, P30 and P31. It is also seen that on the date of return of cheques, the balance available in the account of accused was only Rs.37,337.57 alone. Hence, the learned judge after scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence and compensation passed by the trial Court. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant / accused has preferred the present revision. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in the grounds of revision that the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has not proved the liability of the accused to pay any amount claimed in the complaint. Mere marking of documents not connected with the accused cannot be taken as proof of liability. It was also contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that no statutory notice was served on the petitioner prior to institution of criminal proceedings, which is in violation of one of the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and so the complaint ought to have been dismissed in limine. 10. It was also contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that no statutory notice was served on the petitioner prior to institution of criminal proceedings, which is in violation of one of the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and so the complaint ought to have been dismissed in limine. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the discussions made in the revision 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 period of two years simple imprisonment imposed on the accused is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence from two years simple imprisonment to two months simple imprisonment, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. However, the compensation of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-awarded by the Courts below is on the higher side. Hence, this Court reduces the compensation from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. The accused has to either pay compensation of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand only) or to undergo two months simple imprisonment, as per this Court's order. This Court directs the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur to issue bailable warrant on the accused and secure him into judicial custody forthwith. If the accused remits the compensation amount into the credit of C.C.No.38 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur before being remanded into judicial custody, he would be set at liberty and the sentence of two months simple imprisonment imposed on him would not be operated upon. If the accused deposits the said compensation amount, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the said amount after filing a Memo before the trial Court. This order has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 11. In the ultimate analysis, the above revision is partly allowed with the above modifications. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.173 of 2004, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore, dated 07.12.2004, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.38 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur, dated 29.03.2004 is modified. Accordingly ordered.