Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners / appellants / accused have preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.320 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.581 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The first accused is a joint partnership firm and the second and third accused are its partners. The third accused, on behalf of the first accused firm, had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the complainant on 20.05.2001. In order to discharge the said debt, the third accused had issued a cheque dated 24.05.2001, drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Pollachi, for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his bankers, viz., Syndicate Bank, Avinashi Road Branch, Coimbatore, it was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "exceeds arrangement" on 21.06.2001. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the accused on 04.07.2001 which was received by the accused on 06.07.2001. The accused sent a reply notice dated 26.07.2001, but did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant had preferred a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the side of the complainant, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11, viz., Ex.P1-cheque dated 24.05.2001, Ex.P2-counterfoil for receipt of cheque dated 20.06.2001, Ex.P3-return memo dated 21.06.2001, Ex.P4-debit advice dated 23.06.2001, Ex.P5-lawyer's notice dated 04.07.2001, Exs.P6, P7 and P8-acknowledgment cards showing proof of receipt of notice on 06.07.2001, Ex.P9-reply notice dated 26.07.2001, Ex.P10-letter sent by accused dated 16.01.2002 and Ex.P11-statement of accounts dated 03.10.2001. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined as R.W.1. and no documents were marked. 4. P.W.1, the complainant had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P11. 5. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined as R.W.1. and no documents were marked. 4. P.W.1, the complainant had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as Exs.P1 to P11. 5. P.W.2, Peter Thomas, the Assistant Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Pollachi Branch had adduced evidence that the accused had maintained a current account in their bank and that when the cheque (Ex.P1) was presented at their bank for collection, it was returned unpaid due to "insufficient funds" as the balance in the account of accused was only Rs.41.73/-at the time of presentation of cheque. In support of his evidence, he had marked the bank account statement of accused as Ex.P11. 6. R.W.1., N.Krishnaraj had adduced evidence that he is the employee at Om Prakash Theatre, Pollachi and that at present the said theatre is being administered by Sairam of Chennai Pyramid. He deposed that the accused is a distributor of films and that he used to take films from one Seetharam of Lions Films, giving pronotes and cheque as security while receiving the films and later issued cheques to settle the amount after display of the films. R.W.1 deposed that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance such huge sums of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- and that the accused was financially sound and had a petrol bunk, theatre, house and also had a monthly income of Rs.1 1/2 lakhs and as such, there was no need to for him to borrow any money from the complainant. 7. It was pointed out on the side of the complainant that Ex.P10 is the letter issued on behalf of the first accused firm wherein, it has been requested that the complainant withdraw the case. It was also pointed out that the accused had made several representations in Court to settle the cheque amount and due to this, the case was adjourned from time to time, but till now they had not effected any payment. 8. It was contended on the side of the accused that the complainant had misused the cheque given as security and that the complainant had not proved that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. 8. It was contended on the side of the accused that the complainant had misused the cheque given as security and that the complainant had not proved that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It was also contended that no documents had been marked on the side of the complainant to show that business transactions had existed between the complainant and accused and that the complainant had not produced any account books or income tax returns to prove the advancement of the said loan to the accused. 9. On scrutiny of Ex.P9, the reply notice sent by accused, it is seen that the accused had given the cheque for Rs.6,50,000/-and that it had been signed by the third accused. On scrutiny of Ex.P10, it is seen that the accused had admitted that they had issued two cheques viz., cheque No.035326 dated 20.05.2001 and cheque No.692300 dated 24.05.2001, for a total amount of Rs.7,50,000/-to and in favour of the complainant. It was submitted that the accused would pay the balance of Rs.7,50,000/-to the complainant within two months and the complainant was requested to withdraw the case filed against them. The learned Magistrate further observed that the said letter sent by the accused had been attested by a notary public. The learned Magistrate observed that the third accused had not disputed his signature in the cheque and had not examined themselves to prove that the said cheque had not been issued by them. It is also seen that the cheque was returned due to "insufficiency of funds" in the account of accused. From the settlement letter dated 26.12.2005, it is seen that the accused had agreed to settle the amount due to the complainant and that adjournments were given on 15.02.2006, 13.03.2006 and 20.03.2006 to effect such settlement. Hence, the learned Magistrate, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held the accused guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced each of the second and third accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of expiry of appeal period. It was directed that the sentence imposed on the accused was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on them in C.C.No.574 of 2001. 10. It was directed that the sentence imposed on the accused was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on them in C.C.No.574 of 2001. 10. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.320 of 2006 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore. The learned judge after scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence and compensation imposed by the trial Court. 11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the accused have preferred the present revision. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the petitioners had no necessity to borrow money from the complainant and that the cheques in question were given to the complainant as security in their business dealings. It was contended that the complainant had misused the cheques to take revenge against the petitioners. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that both Courts have not considered the evidence of R.W.1, Krishnaraj, who disclosed the factual position of the case. He also revealed the financial status and property possessed by the accused and also his income sources. As such, the accused do not have the necessity to borrow any loan amount from the complainant. The cheque has been issued for security purpose in order to display films. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no crystal clear statement on the side of the complainant regarding loan transaction as alleged by him. Besides, no substantial evidence had been produced by the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- 14. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused had admitted the issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant and that the accused had also not denied the signature in the cheque. The accused had received legal notice wherein he had not denied the issuance of cheque. To prove the dishonour of cheque, the complainant and the bank manager was examined and 11 documents were marked. As such, the case was proved beyond doubt against the accused. Therefore, the accused have to be punished, for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there is no discrepancy in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 15. As such, the case was proved beyond doubt against the accused. Therefore, the accused have to be punished, for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there is no discrepancy in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 15. 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 to punish the accused. However, the period of one year simple imprisonment and the compensation of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-are on the higher side. Therefore, this Court reduces the sentence of simple imprisonment from one year to two months. The compensation amount is reduced from Rs.6,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The second and third accused have to pay the compensation amount on behalf of the first accused firm. The second and third accused have to either pay the compensation amount of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or each of them have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. This Court directs the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, to issue bailable warrant on the accused 2 and 3 and secure them into judicial custody forthwith. If the accused remits the said compensation amount into the credit of C.C.No.581 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, before being remanded, they would be set at liberty and the sentence of simple imprisonment for two months imposed on them would not be operated. If the accused deposits the said compensation, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the said compensation amount after filing a Memo. This order has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 16. Resultantly, the above revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.320 of 2006, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, dated 14.03.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.581 of 2001, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, dated 19.07.2006 is modified. Accordingly ordered.