Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners herein/appellants/accused have preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1140 of 2007 against the judgment passed in C.A.No.276 of 2005, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.9086 of 1999. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is M/s. Evergreen Sea Food (P) Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The first accused is M/s. Henbe Exports, a partnership firm and is represented by the Managing Director of the firm, who is the second accused. The third accused is the partner in the first accused firm. At the request of M/s. Infa and Agro Marine Exports Limited, the complainant sold and delivered seafoods of different varieties as per invoice No.1, 2 and 3/98-99L all dated 01.06.1998, aggregating to a total value of Rs.21,00,000/-. Towards the partial discharge of the amount due and payable by M/s. Infa Agro and Marine Exports Private Limited, the second accused, as Managing Director of the first accused signed and issued a cheque dated 06.05.1999 (cheque No.036587), drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet, Chennai-7 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz., Canara Bank, Vepery Branch, Choolai, Chennai-112, on 09.10.1999, it was returned dishonoured on 11.10.1999 for the reason, "insufficient funds". The communication of dishonour was received by the complainant on 12.10.1999. The complainant issued statutory notices to all the accused on 15.10.1999, which was returned with an endorsement of "no such company" on 23.10.1999, "name differs" on 20.10.1999 and "intimated" on 20.10.1999 respectively. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. As the accused did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant's side, the power of attorney holder of the complainant's firm, viz., Bhoopathi was examined as P.W.1 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19, viz., Ex.P1-power of attorney given to P.W.1., Exs.P2, P3 and P4-invoices, Ex.P5-cheque, Ex.P6-return memo, Ex.P7-debit advice, Ex.P8-copy of lawyer's notice, Exs.P9, P10 and P11-returned covers, Ex.P12-extract of ledger showing supply of fish to M/s. Infa Agro and Marine Exports (P) Ltd., Ex.P13-cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- issued to complainant, Ex.P14-return memo, Ex.P15-copy of bank account statement of complainant's firm, Ex.P16-copy of letter sent by complainant firm, Ex.P17-cheque for Rs1,00,000/- issued by second accused to the complainant firm, Ex.P18-return memo, Ex.P19-copy of notice. On the side of the accused, the copy of the statement of account of the complainant's firm dated 1997-1998 was marked as Ex.R1. 4. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked the documents listed as Exs.P1 to P19. 5. It was argued on the side of the accused that the power of attorney letter given to P.W.1 has not been given in the correct format and that the complainant's firm had not supplied any fish foods to the accused. It was contended that the cheques given as security to the complainant's firm had been misused to foist a false case against the accused. 6. The learned Magistrate observed that the second accused had not denied the signature in the cheque marked as Ex.P5. The learned Magistrate on scrutiny of invoices marked as Exs.P2, P3, P4 also observed that the said cheque had been issued by the accused as part payment for a legally enforceable debt and hence rejected the contentions of the accused that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The learned Magistrate on scrutiny of the balance sheet of the complainant's firm marked as Ex.R1, opined that the total amount payable by the accused had been reflected in the said balance sheet. The learned Magistrate on scrutiny of the balance sheet of the complainant's firm marked as Ex.R1, opined that the total amount payable by the accused had been reflected in the said balance sheet. The learned Magistrate also opined that a person can be empowered to adduce evidence either by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the firm or through a power of attorney and observed that P.W.1 has been empowered by his firm to give evidence as per "power of attorney" given to him by his firm. 7. Hence, the learned Magistrate, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence held all the three accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a sentence of six months simple imprisonment on each of the accused and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-on each of them; in default of payment of fine, each of the accused was to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Magistrate also directed that sentence imposed on the accused was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on them as per order made in C.C.No.9087 of 1999. 8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, the accused have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.276 of 2005, before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. It was contended on the side of the accused that no board of resolution letter empowering the P.W.1 had been marked as document and as such, the trial Court had failed to see that P.W.1 had not been empowered to adduce evidence. It was also pointed out that the trial Court failed to consider that a petition had been filed by the complainant's side to mark the earlier cheques dishonoured by the accused firm as additional documents in the case. It was contended that as per Ex.R1, the statement of account of the complainant's firm, it is evident that the transaction regarding supply of fish had not been reflected in the said balance sheet and as such, the trial Court had failed to see that the accused does not owe the complainant any money as liability. The learned judge, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and on scrutiny of the trial Court's order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's order. 9. The learned judge, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and on scrutiny of the trial Court's order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's order. 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, the appellant / accused has preferred the present revision. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended in the grounds of revision that the lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged power of attorney deed which was said to have been issued in favour of one Mr. A.C. Boopathi was not properly and duly executed and the said deed did not even disclose as to who was the executor and as to whether the person was authorized to execute the said power by a resolution of Board of Directors of the Company and did not produce any authority to execute such deed. It was contended that the lower Court failed to note that even as per the alleged power of attorney, it was given only in respect of instituting a complaint against a different company and not the appellants herein. It was pointed out that the lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant had failed to produce the relevant records pertaining to the disputed cheques and produced expired cheques as additional documents, which was not at all relevant to this case. It was contended that the learned judge failed to appreciate the documents marked by the appellant as Ex.R1, the balance sheet of the complainant company, which did not disclose any liability from the appellants. It was contended that the learned judge ought to have appreciated the fact that in the absence of any allegations or evidence against the appellant regarding the alleged liability, the complaint ought not to have been entertained at all and ought to have been dismissed. 11. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused had borrowed sea foods of different varieties from the complainant on credit basis. In order to show proof of purchase the sea foods, the complainant had produced three invoices. As such, the accused is liable to pay Rs.21,00,000/-In order to discharge a part payment of the legally enforceable debt, the second accused had issued a cheque on behalf of the first accused firm in favour of the complainant. The same was presented for collection and it was returned with an endorsement of "insufficiency of funds". As such, the accused is liable to pay Rs.21,00,000/-In order to discharge a part payment of the legally enforceable debt, the second accused had issued a cheque on behalf of the first accused firm in favour of the complainant. The same was presented for collection and it was returned with an endorsement of "insufficiency of funds". Thereafter, the complainant had adhered to all legal formalities and levelled a case before the learned Magistrate. After contest, the case was proved. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused in the revision and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and on perusing the judgment of the Courts below, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for convicting the accused. However, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment imposed on the first accused company is not appropriate and hence set-aside. However, the complainant had established his case against the accused 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court directs the accused 2 and 3 to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-to the complainant. The period of six months simple imprisonment imposed on each of the second and third accused is reduced to two months simple imprisonment. The accused 2 and 3 have to either pay the compensation amount jointly or individually or to undergo two months simple imprisonment. This Court directs the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to issue bailable warrant and secure the accused 2 and 3 into judicial custody in order to undergo two months simple imprisonment as per this Court's order. If the accused remits the said compensation amount of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- into the credit of C.C.No.9086 of 1999, on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai before being remanded into judicial custody, the accused 2 and 3 would be set free and the period of sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on each of them would not be operated. If the accused deposits the said amount, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the same from the trial Court, after filing a Memo. If the accused pays the said compensation amount, the total fine amount paid by them including fine paid for the first accused firm is to be refunded. If the accused deposits the said amount, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the same from the trial Court, after filing a Memo. If the accused pays the said compensation amount, the total fine amount paid by them including fine paid for the first accused firm is to be refunded. This order has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 13. Resultantly, the above criminal revision is partly allowed with the above modifications. Consequently, the conviction and judgment passed in C.A.No.276 of 2005, on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 19.07.2007, confirming the conviction and judgment passed in C.C.No.9086 of 1999, on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is modified. Accordingly ordered.