ORDER : 1. The petitioner has been indicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in ST.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kollam, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, (Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.). Ext.P2 dishonoured cheque dated 22.10.2007 is for Rs.1,03,769/-. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 8.08.2014 has convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,70,000/-(which is also inclusive of the interest on the cheque amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque), and in default of payment of fine the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.1,70,000/- it has been directed that an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shall be disbursed as compensation to the complainant as per Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2014 before the Appellate Sessions Court, Kollam. The Appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam) as per the impugned judgment rendered on 17.03.2017 has confirmed the conviction by reducing the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for four months to imprisonment till rising of the court and by enhancing the default sentence clause from three months to six months and also confirming the direction to pay the fine amount. The above said verdicts of both the courts below, are under challenge in this criminal revision petition. 2. Heard Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.Bijith.S.Khan, learned counsel appearing for R2 (Kollam Co operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.) and Sri.Renjith Thampan learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Sri.Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1,State. 3. 2. Heard Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.Bijith.S.Khan, learned counsel appearing for R2 (Kollam Co operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.) and Sri.Renjith Thampan learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Sri.Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1,State. 3. The brief of the case of the complainant is to the effect that the accused is one of the share holders of the complainant Bank and that he had availed a business loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on which he committed default in paying the instalment and that in discharge of his liabilities in that regard he had issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 22.10.2007 for Rs.1,03,679/- drawn from his account and payable to the complainant Bank and the cheque when presented resulted in dishonour as per Exts.P3 and P4 bank memos dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 and that the complainant Bank had thereupon issued Ext.P5 statutory demand notice dated 15.11.2007 calling upon the accused to pay off the amount covered by the cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice sent through Registered Post was duly served on the accused as per Exts. P6 and P7. The accused has sent Ext.P8 reply denying the liability. Thereupon the complainant Bank, after following the requisite formalities, had instituted the present complaint which resulted in the trial. During the trial the complainant had examined one of its officials who is the power of attorney holder, as PW1 and had marked Exts. P8 to P9 documents. The defence had marked Exts D1 to D3 series but had not examined any defence witness. 4. PW1 had deposed that the accused is one of the share holders of the complainant Bank and that he had availed a business loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and he had defaulted in paying the instalments thereof and that the accused had issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 22.10.2007 for Rs.1,03,679/- in discharge of that liability which resulted in dishonour etc. No serious contentions are raised by the petitioner as regards the findings made by both the courts below that the complainant Bank has satisfied the requisite formalities like issuance for statutory demand notice, etc. The main defence taken up by the accused was to the effect that Ext.P9 ledger account receipts dated 26.10.2006, 28.10.2006 and 30.10.2006 (Exts.D3 (a), D3(b), D3(c)) have not been entered in the ledger register. The main defence taken up by the accused was to the effect that Ext.P9 ledger account receipts dated 26.10.2006, 28.10.2006 and 30.10.2006 (Exts.D3 (a), D3(b), D3(c)) have not been entered in the ledger register. The courts below have found that the said three receipts have been duly entered on the immediate next dates and that the collection agent is expected to remit the collected amount in the complainant Bank on the immediate next day only in the absence of any specific time limit stipulated to remit the amount. Another aspect urged by the petitioner is that Ext.D1 revenue recovery receipt dated 30.07.2012 is only for a demand for an amount of Rs.91,322/- whereas Ext.P2 cheque amount is Rs.1,03,769/-. The courts below have found that on a perusal of Ext.D1 it is seen that 16% interest was claimed on the principal amount of Rs.91,332/- and that the said contention of the petitioner is not sustainable. Yet again the defence has taken up a plea that the entire drawn amount has been duly repaid and that the collection agent used to issue receipts for the amount paid by him, which is endorsed in the passbook given to the petitioner. However, the courts below have found that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove such repayments. Yet another defence raised is that the petitioner was constrained to give 12 blank signed cheques to the complainant at the time of the commencement of the loan transaction and that Ext.P2 cheque is one of them. Both the courts below have found that except raising such defence suggestions, no clinching circumstances could be brought out in evidence to establish such suggestions. Both the courts below have found that the complainant Bank has adduced necessary evidence to prove the case against the accused and that whereas the defence versions are not sustainable or probable. In the light of these considered findings and facts both the courts below have found that the petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the NI Act. 5. In the light of these considered findings and facts both the courts below have found that the petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the NI Act. 5. Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) would submit that it has come out in evidence that the interest charged by the complainant Bank is at the rate of 16% per annum and that the said interest rate in respect of the loan transaction which commenced on 9.10.2006 would be patently illegal and violating the statutory notification issued by the State Government as per S.R.O.No.255/2005 notified in terms of the enabling powers conferred under second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. In this regard the petitioner's counsel would place reliance on the observations rendered by this Court in the decision in Basheer v. Wheels Auto Finance reported in 2017(2) KLT 911 = 2012(3) KHC 3. It is also pointed out that PW1 has clearly admitted in cross examination that the interest rate charged in this case is 13.5% per annum and that additional interest 2.5 % is also charged as agent's commission and that it would thus exceed the upper limit of 12% per annum prescribed in the aforestated S.R.O.No.255/2005 (issued as G.O.P No.29/2005/PV dated 11.03.2005 published in the Kerala Gazette) Ext.No.541 dated 11.3.2005). 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforecited decision in Basheer v. Wheels Auto Finance reported in 2017 (2) KLT 911 = 2017 (3) KHC 3 , in para 8, has referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) KLT 833 = 2009 (4) KHC 871, wherein the Division Bench has held in para 4 thereof, as follows: "4. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant/ petitioner-institutions are established by an Act of Parliament or Legislature of a State, entitling them for exemption by virtue of cl.(f) of S.2(7) of the Act as claimed by them. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that they are registered under the Companies Act and so much so, they should be taken to be institutions established by Act of Parliament which is the Companies Act,1956. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that they are registered under the Companies Act and so much so, they should be taken to be institutions established by Act of Parliament which is the Companies Act,1956. However, we cannot accept this contention because the Act of Parliament or the Legislature of a State referred to in cl.(f) of S.2(7) should be a legislation providing for establishment of an institution to carry on business in the granting of loan or advance in accordance with the provisions of the said legislation. In other words, the institutions intended to be covered are Statutory Corporations formed to carry on business in granting of loans or making advances based on the provisions of the statute under which they are created. Therefore, companies registered under the Companies Act or societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or even partnerships registered under the Partnership Act or the like are not the institutions covered by cl.(f) of S.2(7). The appellants/petitioners have no case that they are carrying on money lending or finance business under the provisions of the statute under which they are constituted. In order to fall within the exception provided in sub-cl.(f) of S.2(7), it is not enough that the establishment is formed under one statute and financing is done in accordance with the provisions of another statute. In other words, a company registered under the Companies Act carrying on business in accordance with the provisions contained in the R.B.I. Act or the Money Lenders Act, cannot claim exception under cl.(f) of S.2(7). Since admittedly appellants are not carrying on money lending business in accordance with the statutory provisions under which they are registered, they are not covered by sub-cl.(f) of S.2(7) of the Act and the learned Single Judge rightly rejected their claim. We, therefore, turn down the challenge against the judgment on this ground." Thus it can be seen in para 4 of the Sundaram Finance Ltd.'s case supra, the Division Bench has observed that companies registered under the Companies Act, or the society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or even partnerships registered under the Partnership Act or the like, are not institutions covered by clause (f) of Sec.2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner would contend that the provisions of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act including the abovesaid notification at SRO No.255 of 2005 would be applicable even to co-operative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and that therefore the alleged liability of the petitioner to pay interest @ 16.5 p.a. is illegal and unenforceable and, therefore, the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted in the instant case. 6. On a perusal of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd.'s case supra reported in 2009 (4) KLT 833 , it is seen that the main matter in issue posed before the Division Bench in that case, is as to whether Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) would come within the applicability of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. The contention raised by the petitioner therein was to the effect that institutions like the NBFC would come within the exclusionary zone of Clause (7) of Sec. 2 (7) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The contention raised by the petitioner NBFC therein was repelled by the Division Bench by holding that the NBFC, which is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, will not get the benefit of the exclusionary zone contained in Sec. 2(7)(f) of the Money-Lenders Act. While discussing that issue in para 4 of the Sundaram Finance Ltd.'s case supra, their Lordships of the Division Bench have also observed that the companies registered under the Companies Act or societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act are not institutions, which would come within the exclusionary zone of clause (f) of Sec. 2(7). But the issue as to whether or not a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is a excluded from the definition of “money-lender” in Sec.2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, was never a point of consideration in that case. On the other hand, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Addl. Advocate General instructed by Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State would point out to this Court's attention that clause (a) of Sec.2(7) clearly states that a bank or a co-operative society will not come within the definition of “money lender”. On the other hand, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Addl. Advocate General instructed by Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State would point out to this Court's attention that clause (a) of Sec.2(7) clearly states that a bank or a co-operative society will not come within the definition of “money lender”. It would be profitable to refer Sec. 2(7)(a) and (f), which read as follows: Sec.2: Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-- (1)..... (2).... xxx xxx xxx (7) "money-lender" means a person whose main or subsidiary occupation is the business of advancing and realising loans or acceptance of deposits in the course of such business and includes any person appointed by him to be in charge of a branch office or branch offices or a liaison office or any other office by whatever name called, of his principal place of business and a pawn broker, but does not include-- (a) a bank or a co-operative society; or xxx xxx xxx (f) any institution established by or under an Act of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, which grants any loan or advance in pursuance of the provisions of that Act, or xxx xxx xxx" 7. That apart, Sec. 7(1) and its two provisos read as follows: “Sec. 7: Interest and charges allowed to money-lenders. (1) No money-lender shall charge interest on any loan at a rate exceeding two per cent above the maximum rate of interest charged by commercial banks on loans granted by them: Provided that a money-lender shall be entitled to charge a minimum of one rupee as interest on any transaction. Provided further that the Government may specify, by notification, the rate of interest under sub-section (1) from time to time.” 8. True that the Division Bench of this Court has held that a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would not come within the exclusionary zone of clause (f) of Sec. 2(7). In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Division Bench had no occasion to consider the crucial issue as to whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, would come within the ambit of the exclusionary clause in clause (a) of Sec. 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act. That is precisely the issue that is arising in the instant case. That is precisely the issue that is arising in the instant case. Clause (a) of Sec. 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act is a complete answer to that issue in favour of the respondents. Clause (a) of Sec.2(7) clearly mandates that a bank or a co-operative society would not come within the ambit of the definition of “money lender” in terms of Sec.2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. If that be so, the notification issued as SRO No.255 of 2005 in terms of second proviso to Sec.7(1) of the Kerala Money- Lenders Act, will also not apply to a co-operative society. SRO No.255 of 2005 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 11.3.2005 reads as follows: "S.R.O. No. 255/2005.— In exercise of the powers conferred by S.7 of the Kerala Money - Lenders Act, 1958 (Act 35 of 1958) the Government of Kerala, having considered it necessary in public interest so to do, hereby fix the rate of interest under sub-section (1) of S.7 of the said Act at twelve per cent annum." 9. Further a perusal of the decision of this Court in Basheer v. Wheels Auto Finance Ltd., reported in 2017 (2) KLT 911 , would also show that the complainant therein was an NBFC (and not a co-operative society) and it was also found out on the basis of evidence in that case that the amount covered by the impugned cheque therein would include the actual amount plus interest @ 54% p.a. etc. which would be against Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act, (see para 24 of the KLT report in Basheer's case supra). Therefore, reliance made in Basheer's case supra on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance's case supra is correct and proper inasmuch as both the said cases were concerned only about NBFC institutions and not about cooperative societies. From the facts and circumstances dealt with in Basheer's case reported in 2017 (2) KLT 911 and Sundaram Finance's case reported in 2009 (4) KLT 833 , it is clear that the said decisions cannot be said to be authorities laying down the proposition that a co-operative society is not exempted from the purview of Sec. 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, inasmuch as clause (a) of Sec. 2(7) explicitly and categorically excludes cooperative societies from the very definition of “Money-Lender” envisaged in Sec. 2(7) thereof. However, the present case is the one, in which the complainant is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and herein, the only issue is as to whether a co-operative society will come within the definition of “money lender” of Sec. 2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. As stated herein above, it is expressly mandated in clause (a) of Sec.2(7) that a bank or co-operative society will not come within the ambit of Sec. 2(7). Sec.2(2) of the Kerala Money- Lenders Act, 1958 defines a “co-operative society” to mean a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, (Madras Act VI of 1932) or the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (Act X of 1952). It may be noted that the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958 (Act 35 of 1958) was enacted in the year 1958. At that point of time, the law regulating cooperative societies was in terms of the provisions contained in the Madras Cooperative Societies Act 1932, in respect of the Malabar region and by Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951, in the Travancore-Cochin areas. Later, that the Kerala Legislature had enacted the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (State Act 21 of 1969) and the said Act had come into force on 15.5.1969 as per notification No.243/14/C3/69 AD dated 12.5.1969. Sec. 11o of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, provides as follows: “Sec. 110 : Repeal and savings:- The Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 (VI of 1932), as in force in the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of S.5 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) and the Travancore - Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (X of 1952) are repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and the Travancore- Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and without prejudice to the provisions of Ss. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and the Travancore- Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and without prejudice to the provisions of Ss. 4 and 23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 (VII of 1125): (i) all appointments, rules and orders made, notifications and notices issued, and suits and other proceedings instituted, under any or the Acts hereby repealed shall, so far as may be, be deemed to have been respectively made, issued and instituted under this Act; (ii) any society existing in the state on the date of commencement of this Act which has been registered or deemed to be registered under any of the aforesaid repealed Acts shall be deemed to be registered under the Act, and the bye-laws of such society shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded.” 10. It can thus be seen by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec.110 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 have been repealed. Sec. 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897) provides as follows: “Sec.8: Construction of references to repealed enactments:- (1) Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts; with or without modification any provisions of a former enactment, the references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted. (2) Where before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom repealed and re-enacted], with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any Central Act or in any Regulation or instrument to the provision so re-enacted.” 11. Pari materia provision has been engrafted in Sec.7 of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation & General Clauses Act, 1125, which reads as follows: Sec.7. Construction of references to repealed enactments:- Where any Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification any provision of a former enactment, then, references in any other enactment or in any other instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.” 12. Construction of references to repealed enactments:- Where any Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification any provision of a former enactment, then, references in any other enactment or in any other instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.” 12. So it can be seen that a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would also come within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958 and hence, by virtue of the mandatory exclusionary clause contained in clause (a) of Sec.2(7) of the Kerala Money-Lenders act, 1958, a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would also stand excluded from the applicability of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act. Since that is the position, the provisions contained in Sec.7(1) as well as the consequential provisions contained in SRO No.255 of 2005 will also not be applicable to a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Therefore, even if a co-operative society is involving in the activity of loan transactions, it will stand totally outside the applicability of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. In this view of the matter, it is only to be held that the abovesaid contention of the petitioner based on SRO No.255 of 2005 to the extent it applies to a co-operative society is only to be repelled and it is so ordered. 13. In the light of the abovesaid concurrent findings made by both the courts below, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the conviction rendered against the petitioner. As far as the sentence is concerned, it is noted that the trial court had initially imposed substantive sentence of 4 months' simple imprisonment along with direction to pay fine of Rs.1,70,000/- with the default sentence clause of 3 months. The appellate court has liberally modified the substantive sentence of four months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The cheque amount is for Rs.1,03,769/-. The Apex Court in the decision in Baby v. Vijayan reported in 2012 (1) SCC 206, has held that criminal courts could award interest upto 9% p.a. on the dishonoured cheque amount from the date of cheque, upto date of realisation. The cheque amount is for Rs.1,03,769/-. The Apex Court in the decision in Baby v. Vijayan reported in 2012 (1) SCC 206, has held that criminal courts could award interest upto 9% p.a. on the dishonoured cheque amount from the date of cheque, upto date of realisation. The transaction in question, which led to the liability, is in respect of a loan transaction entered into by the petitioner with the co-operative bank. Therefore, the direction to pay the fine amount of Rs.1,70,000/- cannot be said to be disproportionate and excessive. However, it is seen that, out of the said fine amount, only an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reduce the fine amount from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs. 1,65,000/- and default sentence clause could be reduced from 6 months to 3 months. 14. Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) submits that in case this Court is so inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence, etc., then this Court may grant at least 6 months' time to the petitioner to pay the fine amount directly to the complainant bank. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) The impugned conviction and substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will stand confirmed. (ii) The fine amount will stand reduced to Rs.1,65,000/-. The default sentence clause will stand reduced to 3 months. (iii) The fine amount so realised shall be disbursed to the complainant in full in terms of Sec. 335(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. (iv) The petitioner is given six months' time from 1.10.2017 to pay the fine/ compensation amount of Rs.1,65,000/- directly to the complainant bank. (v) The direction to pay fine is modified by ordering that the petitioner will pay compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- directly to the complainant in terms of Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. On receiving such payments, the complainant bank will issue necessary receipts to evidence such payments so as to enable the accused to present the same before the trial court to satisfy the said court about such payments. (vi) The petitioner shall personally appear before the trial court at 11 a.m. on 7.4.2018 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and to satisfy the said court about the payment of the abovesaid amount directly the complainant. (vii) On default of the petitioner to pay the abovesaid amount as directed above, the petitioner will have to undergo to simple imprisonment for a period of three months. (viii) Until 7.4.2018 all further coercive steps that may be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the execution of the impugned sentence in this case will stand deferred. (ix) On default of the petitioner either to appear before the trial court on 7.4.2018 or on default to pay the abovesaid amount, the trial court will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the trial court. With these observations and directions, the afore captioned Criminal Revision Petition stands finally disposed of.