JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant criminal revision is directed against the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, H.P. on 11.8.2015 in Cr. Appeal No. 03-S/10 of 2012, whereby, the latter affirmed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasuali, Court No. II, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 99/3 of 2007/02. However, it reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to nine months, yet the sentence with respect to imposition of fine, by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Jude. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2001-02, the petitioner/accused approached the respondents for supplying liquor on credit basis to him. On the basis of request so made, the respondents supplied liquor to the application of the value of Rs. 21,65,072/- only. To discharge the aforesaid liability, the appellant issued cheque dated 21st September, 2002 in a sum of Rs. 21,65,072/- drawn against his account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Branch Solan, District Solan, H.P. in favour of the complainant. The complainants presented the aforementioned cheque with their banker namely Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo, within the period of its validity for collection of amount. However, the banker of the appellant vide its memo dated 26.9.2002, returned the cheque to their banker and thereby it was informed that due to insufficient funds in the account of the appellant, the cheque could not be honoured. The banker vide its memo dated 1.10.2002 returned the cheque as well as the aforementioned memo and thereby he was apprised of the aforementioned factual position. On receipt of the aforementioned information, the complainants served upon the accused/petitioner a legal notice dated 10.10.2002, sent by way of registered letters and under postal certificate and thereby he was apprised of the factum of dishonouring of the cheque by his banker and he was further called upon to make the cheque payment within the stipulated period. The registered letter sent on his home address was returned with remarks that appellant was out of station, whereas, notice sent on the address of Solan, was returned with remarks that the appellant had left the aforementioned address without his further address of contact. The registered letter sent on his home address was returned with remarks that appellant was out of station, whereas, notice sent on the address of Solan, was returned with remarks that the appellant had left the aforementioned address without his further address of contact. However, the notice sent vide UPC did not receive back and as such was presumed to have been served upon him in due course of time. In view of the nature of the reports made, the service was deemed to have been effected upon him. The accused/petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), put notice of accusation to him, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the complainants examined one witness. On closure of complainants evidence, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and no evidence was led in defence by him. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused/petitioner, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the latter affirmed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. However, it reduced the sentence of imprisonment, from, two years to 9 months, whereas, the sentence in respect of imposition of fine, was maintained and affirmed by it. 6. The accused/petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, not, standing based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs being se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner/accused has, upon anvil of clause (a) of Section 142 of the Act, vigorously contended, of, with evident non satiation of the statutory ingredients borne therein, thereupon, the learned Magistrate concerned was barred to take cognizance upon the apposite complaint. Also hence, the impugned rendition is rendered vitiated. Provisions of Section 142 of the Act read as under:- “142. Cognizance of offences — Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. (c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under section 138.” In making the aforesaid submission, he alludes to Ex. CW1/A, the apposite dishonoured negotiable instrument, (i) pertinently, of, it being issued vis-a-vis Him Fed Bottling Plant, wherefrom, he contends that the complaint, was institutable by the Manager of Him Fed Bottling Plant, rather than by one Sh. Ramesh Bhaik, who, inaptly under Ex. CW1/B, exhibit whereof is a copy of a resolution passed by the complainant, authorising, Mr. CW1/A, the apposite dishonoured negotiable instrument, (i) pertinently, of, it being issued vis-a-vis Him Fed Bottling Plant, wherefrom, he contends that the complaint, was institutable by the Manager of Him Fed Bottling Plant, rather than by one Sh. Ramesh Bhaik, who, inaptly under Ex. CW1/B, exhibit whereof is a copy of a resolution passed by the complainant, authorising, Mr. Ramesh Bahik to present the complaint or to testify in respect of the contents borne therein, was hence bestowed with the authorisations, given (a) his name not occurring in Ex.CW1/A, (b) nor his being its holder in due course. However the aforesaid submission is repelled, for the reasons, (a) the learned defence counsel while holding the complainant's witness to cross-examination, his not purveying apposite suggestions to him, for, hence invalidating the apposite resolution borne in Ex. CW1/B, whereunder, the complainant authorised one Ramesh Bhaik, to, institute a complaint and also to testify in respect of the recitals borne therein; (b) no suggestion being put by the learned defence counsel to the complainants' witness that the payee of Ex.CW1/A, nomenclatured therein, as Him Fed Bottling Plant not being an ancillary or a subsidiary entity of the complainants, rather it being an entity distinct, from, the entity of the complainant; (c) no suggestion being put to the complainants' witness, of, the complainants being, not, the holder in due course, of EX.CW1/A. Since, the aforesaid most pertinent suggestions, warranted theirs being purveyed vis-a-vis the prosecution witness, reiteratedly with also theirs holding e-choings (i) of, the complainant being, not, legally construable to be the holder in due course of Ex.CW1/A, (ii) especially AND arising from, want of its holding control, over its liquor bottling plant, wherefrom the supplies of liquor bottles, were made, by the complainant vis-a-vis the accused, (iii) renders the aforesaid submission to be not bed-rocked upon any hard evidentiary strata. Consequently, this Court, cannot accept, the submission made by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner/convict, that for purported non satiation of the ingredients borne in clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act, thereupon, the learned trial Magistrate being barred to take cognizance upon the apposite complaint nor this Court hence recording any rendition in affirmation of the findings of the conviction returned upon the accused. 10. 10. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, on anvil of the provisions borne in Section 141 of the Act, provisions whereof read as under:- “141. Offences by companies — (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” Has contended (i) that given one Raj Kumar being designated in the apposite complaint to be the proprietor/partner of M/s Thakur and Company, arrayed as co-accused No. 1, with its bearing the designation, of, Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, thereupon (ii) the complainants acquiescing qua co-accused No. 1 being construable to be a “company” registered under the Companies Act, with a further sequel of the mandate borne in sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act, (iii) whereupon, qua offences alleged to be committed by a “company” the complainants is/are enjoined, to hold vivid reflections of one Raj Kumar arrayed as accused No. 2, being responsible for the conduct and business, of, one Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, (iv) whereas, the aforesaid recitals, not, finding occurrence in the apposite complaint, render it to be mis-constituted with a further sequel, of its entailing dismissal. However, the aforesaid submission is also rejected (v) given the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/convict, not, bearing in mind the fact that in the apposite complaint, one Raj Kumar, who is arrayed therein as co-accused No. 2, being reflected, as Proprietor/Partner of the Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, wherefrom, (vi) it is apt to conclude, of, co-accused No. 1, who, though stands designated in the apposite complaint, as, M/s Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, rather hence being a partnership firm, (vii) especially with accused No. 2 being reflected to be its Proprietor/Partner, nomenclaturing wherewhom, is ipso facto personificatory of it being a partnership firm, (viii) especially with accused No. 1 being reflected in the apposite complaint to be Thakur and Company, thereupon, co-accused No. 2 enjoined his reflection therein as its Director or Managing Director rather than its Proprietor or Partner, (ix) consequently, the reflections in the apposite complaint, of co-accused No. 2, to be the Proprietor or Partner (of Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, (x) constrains a conclusion of the mere description of accused No. 1, as Thakur and Company, Wine Merchants, Hospital Road Solan, being not amenable to any inference, of it being construable to be a company registered under the Companies Act, nor it is sagacious to thereupon make any conclusion that hence, thereupon, the complainants was/were enjoined, to, in the apposite complaint, hence, make candid recitals, of accused No. 2 being responsible for the act, conduct and business of accused No. 1. In aftermath, the lack of aforesaid recitals, in consonance with the statutory ingredients embedded in sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act, in the apposite complaint, (xi) do not render the apposite complaint being construed to be mis-constituted nor any inference is arousable qua thereupon, the verdicts pronounced thereon being vitiated. In aftermath, the lack of aforesaid recitals, in consonance with the statutory ingredients embedded in sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act, in the apposite complaint, (xi) do not render the apposite complaint being construed to be mis-constituted nor any inference is arousable qua thereupon, the verdicts pronounced thereon being vitiated. Reinforced vigour to the aforesaid inference is marshalled from the factum (xii) of no therewith best documentary evidence comprised in the registration certificate, of, accused No. 1, as a Company, being adduced into evidence, by accused No. 2 nor his counsel while subjecting the complainants' witness to cross-examination, making any suggestion to him, qua upon non occurrence, in the complaint, of the statutory ingredients, of the afore extracted provisions of the Act, thereupon, it being hence mis-constituted, (xiii) preeminently also with the accused in proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. not therein making any e-choings in tandem with the espousals made here-before, render the aforesaid espousal, being not based upon any hard evidentiary material, (xiv) predominantly also with one Raj Kumar appending his signatures, on, Ex.CW1/A, as proprietor or accused No. 1. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/convict submits, of, both the learned Courts below, inaptly drawing the statutory presumption, embodied in Section 139 of the Act, merely, on anvil of the complainant being the holder of Ex.CW1/A, whereas, the aforesaid presumption was rebuttable also stood firmly rebutted. Provisions of Section 139 of the Act read as under:- “139. Presumption in favour of holder- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” He submits that their existed no evident commercial transaction inter se the complainants and the accused nor the amount borne in Ex. CW1/A, was a legally recoverable debt. In the aforesaid regard, he draws the attention of this Court, to an admission occurring in the cross-examination of CW-1, of Him Fed, not, possessing any document, in respect of its supplying liquor bottles vis-a-vis the accused. CW1/A, was a legally recoverable debt. In the aforesaid regard, he draws the attention of this Court, to an admission occurring in the cross-examination of CW-1, of Him Fed, not, possessing any document, in respect of its supplying liquor bottles vis-a-vis the accused. However, any reliance upon the aforesaid admission is also misplaced, (i) especially upon its conjuctive reading with Ex.CW1/B, exhibit whereof comprises a resolution rendered by the complainants upon CW-1, whereby, he stood authorised to prosecute the complaint, (ii) besides its reading in coagulation with the afore referred inferences, of, the complainant being holder of the cheque in due course, (iii) rather than its payee, payee whereof is Him Fed Bottling Plant, industrial unit whereof, is for reasons aforestated, a subsidiary of the complainant, rather begetting inference, of (a) with CW-1 evidently, not, being the Manager or the Cashier/Accountant, of, the Him Fed Bottling Plant, whereover, the complainant evidently held its control, its being its subsidiary, (b) thereupon, his making any admission, of the controlling entity, of, an ancillary apt industrial unit, obviously, not, holding the relevant documents, suggestive of sales of liquor bottles being made by Him Fed Bottling Plant vis-a-vis the accused hence not repelling the statutory provisions embodied in Section 139 of the Act, (c) given the befitting documentary evidence being held by the Accountants or the General Manager of Him Fed Bottling Plant, an ancillary unit of the complainants, (d), wherefrom it enjoined its emanation, (e) than from the principal entity, (e) however, the accused not ensuring the adduction into evidence, of the aforesaid best documentary evidence, constrains an adverse inference against him, that upon its production, it would render unsustainable their defence. Reiteratedly, the isolated admission, occurring in the cross-examination CW-1, is insignificant, for carrying forward the submission of the learned counsel, for his hence rebutting the statutory presumption occurring in Section 139 of the Act. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the findings of conviction recorded by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. However, since the complainant has also a legal remedy, to recover the cheque amount by instituting a civil suit, against the petitioner/ accused, hence, the quantum of fine amount as imposed upon the convict/accused, appears to be grossly harsh and exorbitant. In sequel, the findings of conviction recorded by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. However, since the complainant has also a legal remedy, to recover the cheque amount by instituting a civil suit, against the petitioner/ accused, hence, the quantum of fine amount as imposed upon the convict/accused, appears to be grossly harsh and exorbitant. Consequently, the concurrently imposed sentence of fine upon the convict, comprised in a sum of Rs. 40 lacs, is modified in a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, in default whereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of three months. However, the substantive sentence of 9 months imprisonment imposed upon the convict by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Solan is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.