JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the XVIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.7509/2009, confirmed by the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63), Bengaluru, in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 2. Briefly stated, the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') alleging that, the complainant is a distributor for M/s. Schneider Electric India (P) Limited, New Delhi. The accused representing his Company M/s.Balaji Power Gears availed the services of the complainant by placing orders for supply of certain goods. Invoice was raised and the complainant supplied the required materials, which was ordered. The total value of the goods as per invoice is Rs.32,84,019.44 paise. For delayed payment credit limit was 45 days from the date of receiving the supply of the materials. But the accused did not pay the amount within the above period; after persistent demand, the accused issued two cheques in the month of August 2008 and one cheque in the month of September 2008 towards part payment of the total liability. The cheques were presented for encashment before complainant's Banker - Standard Chartered Bank, IPC Unity Building Branch. On 28.9.2008, vide separate Bank endorsement, the cheques were returned as "not arranged for". Demand notice was issued by the complainant on 1.10.2008 and it was served on the accused and his Company. The accused was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.28,53,689/-. The accused gave reply to the notice refuting his liability and rejected the payment of demanded money, thus, committed offence under Section 138 of the Act. 3. On presentation of the complaint, cognizance was taken, accused was procured; he pleaded not guilty. One witness was examined for the complainant and 15 documents were marked. Rebuttal evidence was adduced for the accused and 9 documents were marked. 4. The Trial Court after giving its audience to both found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.40,73,689/- with default clause. Appeal preferred thereon went in vain. 5. Sri. Rebuttal evidence was adduced for the accused and 9 documents were marked. 4. The Trial Court after giving its audience to both found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.40,73,689/- with default clause. Appeal preferred thereon went in vain. 5. Sri. Vijayakumar G. Bagoji, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits, in fact, the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court on the previous occasion vide judgment dated 24.11.2011. The complainant had approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1292/2011. This Court has allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence of the complainant was received by way of affidavit. However, this Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Thus, the matter was remitted back by setting aside the judgment of acquittal. Learned Counsel continues, the courts below have not considered the judgment of this Court from proper perspective. The defence raised by the accused was not at all considered by both the courts below. It was a business transaction between the complainant and the accused and the very complaint was not maintainable. The accused raised his preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint, but the Trial Court rejected the same with the observation that the burden of proof lies upon the accused to show that the cheque in question was not issued towards legally enforceable debt. The complainant being a Proprietorship firm, either the firm or its Proprietor had not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of one Mahesh, who filed the complaint and led the evidence on behalf of the firm. The firm is not made a party to the above proceedings and there is no averment in the complaint how the accused is responsible for the offence. The cheques are signed by the accused as Proprietor of the firm. Hence, firm was a necessary party. The cheques were issued as advance payment subject to conclusion of transaction between the parties. Hence, statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act is not available in this case. The accused in his reply notice dated 11.10.2008 had clearly stated that he had informed the complainant that the drawings were not confirmed by their client and had requested the complainant to withhold the materials with them only. Hence, statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act is not available in this case. The accused in his reply notice dated 11.10.2008 had clearly stated that he had informed the complainant that the drawings were not confirmed by their client and had requested the complainant to withhold the materials with them only. A letter of undertaking of the accused was taken forcibly in the Police Station, but same is not binding on the accused. The legal grounds taken by the accused were not considered. Hence, the judgments of the court below are liable to be set aside. 6. In reply Sri. B.R. Deepak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if the accused had returned the articles, the matter would have been different; consignment is received at their end and cheque was not given as collateral security. This court in its previous Judgment in Crl.A.No.325/2015, D.D. 22.1.2016 had observed that along with the complaint, the Authorisation letter was also produced authorizing Sri. K. Mahesh to present and prosecute the complaint. Authorization to lodge the complaint need not be by way of a special power of attorney only. 7. In view of the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5126 in the matter of Om Shakthi SC/ST Minority Credit Co-operative Society Limited vs. M. Venkatesh, either by way of authorization or Power of Attorney, legal notice/demand notice can be issued to the accused. Despite service of Demand notice, the accused failed to comply the demand of the complainant/firm. The demand was for a total sum of Rs.28,53,689/-. Trial Court on noticing that during the pendency of proceeding accused had paid Rs.6,00,000/- held that balance amount due by the accused was Rs.22,53,689/-; considering the fact that it is a commercial transaction of 5 years in its wisdom held that complainant is entitled for a lumpsum of Rs.17,00,000/- as interest. Thus imposed fine of Rs.40,73,689/-. Hence, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not attracted in the given matter. 8. In the light of the rival submissions and also on consideration of the judgments of the courts below, it emanates that, the complainant and the accused are the Proprietary concerns and the accused availed the services of complainant by placing order for certain material. In accordance with purchase order, materials were supplied. Accused had issued 3 cheques dated 23.08.2008 and 23.09.2009 for a total sum of Rs.28,53,689/-. In accordance with purchase order, materials were supplied. Accused had issued 3 cheques dated 23.08.2008 and 23.09.2009 for a total sum of Rs.28,53,689/-. Though the very liability of the amount mentioned in the cheque is disputed by the accused, it cannot be lost sight of that, subsequent to filing of the complaint towards outstanding liability, a cheque issued for Rs.6,00,000/- is cleared in favour of the complainant. That being so, short questions that would arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the complaint is duly presented? (2) Whether the cheques were issued towards outstanding liability? 9. This Court on the previous occasion in Criminal Appeal No.325/2015 has taken note that, along with the complaint, the authorized agent of the complainant, who is none other than the son of the sole Proprietor, had submitted an authorization letter. In fact, at the initial stage, evidence was placed by way of an affidavit evidence. It was averred in the affidavit sworn to by the authorized agent, "Original authorization letter and the aforesaid three cheques are enclosed as per Exs.P1 to P4." However, the judgment passed on the basis of the said evidence was set aside and subsequently, oral evidence was adduced by the complainant C.Kantilal himself. Perhaps for the said reason, authorization letter was not marked during his evidence. 10. Though number of authorities are cited for the revision petitioner, the judgment of this Court in 2014 ACD 426 (Kar)(Dharwad Bench) in the matter of Canara Workshops Limited, Hubli vs. Mantesh is stressed upon to submit that, the authorization shall specifically authorize to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. In fact, in the said case, an Executive Director had presented the complaint for the Company under the authority executed in his favour. It was noticed that said Power of Attorney was in respect of civil litigation and there was no specific authority to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. But in the case on hand, there is no room for any confusion. The said authorization letter is borne in page No.170 of the lower court records, which reads thus: "I, Mr. C. Kantilal, Proprietor of M/s.Delton Control and Switchgears, Bangalore aged 62 years, R/o Premkunj, 43/1, East Anjaneya Temple Street, D.V.G. Road Cross, Basvangudi, Bangalore-560 004,, do hereby resolve that, my son Mr. The said authorization letter is borne in page No.170 of the lower court records, which reads thus: "I, Mr. C. Kantilal, Proprietor of M/s.Delton Control and Switchgears, Bangalore aged 62 years, R/o Premkunj, 43/1, East Anjaneya Temple Street, D.V.G. Road Cross, Basvangudi, Bangalore-560 004,, do hereby resolve that, my son Mr. K. Mahesh, aged 34 years, residing at the same address has been duly authorized by me to act on my behalf to file and prosecute suits, Writs, complaints of any nature, Appeals and Revisions of any nature, verify plaints, Written statements, Swear Affidavits, appear before courts (both civil & criminal and quasi- judicial authorities, statutory authorities and such other Government authorities or bodies for recording evidence before the court in respect of cases filed by me and against me. All such actions of my son shall be ratified by me so long as they are done solely and exclusively for protecting the interest of myself." 11. The Proprietor of the firm M/s. Delton Control and Switchbears, Bangalore has authorized his son by way of above letter among other things to file and prosecute suits, writs, complaints of any nature ..... (both civil and criminal and . . . . .). This Court in Crl. Appeal No.325/2015 has already taken note of above Authorisation letter. The Accused having accepted the said observation now cannot rewind the clock to challenge the locus standi of Mr. K. Mahesh, to present the cheque. 12. The Trial Court has gone in deep to analyze the evidence placed before it and finds that during the cross- examination, the accused himself has suggested to PW-1 that there was a delay in supplying the materials. It was also noticed that, accused had sent e-mail to the complainant to send the goods after confirmation, but the defence built during the trial was, the goods supplied by the complainant are lying in the godown of the accused and have become waste and though instructed, the complainant has not taken back those goods. From the very own document of accused - Ex.D8, the Trial Court has noticed that, from the e-mail letter sent to the complainant dated 29.5.2008, nothing was stated about the goods sent were of sub-standard quality or were sent after an inordinate delay or not being in accordance with the specification of the Purchase Order. 13. From the very own document of accused - Ex.D8, the Trial Court has noticed that, from the e-mail letter sent to the complainant dated 29.5.2008, nothing was stated about the goods sent were of sub-standard quality or were sent after an inordinate delay or not being in accordance with the specification of the Purchase Order. 13. The Trial Court has examined the conduct of parties in the light of Section 42 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to record that accused did not refuse to receive the goods sent as per Invoice Ex.P10. The undertaking given by the accused before the Police/Ex.P13 admitting the liability for Rs.28,53,689/- and further in issuing three cheques dated 11.3.2013, 11.4.2013 and 11.5.2013 for Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.7,55,801/- respectively and allowing the complaint to encash one cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- had a barring on the Trial Court to hold that the liability of the accused was Rs.19,55,801/-. 14. The question regarding the authority to file the complaint was raised by the accused for the first time in appeal. However, the said contention is brushed aside by the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that letter of authorization is filed along with the complaint and this Court in ILR 2007 KAR 5126 (supra) had held that the complaint filed by Firm should either be supported by an authorization or Power of Attorney. 15. The question of not arraying the firm as the complainant was also addressed by the lower appellate court on noticing that the accused himself, in the appeal had shown the firm as the complainant. Further, the lower appellate court has taken support from the judgment of the High Court of Delhi wherein it is held that, sole Proprietorship Firm concern would not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 141 of the Act. There is merit in this proposition. A Proprietorship concern cannot be grooved to fit into four angles of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The firm cannot be deemed to be an independent entity from its sole proprietor. 16. Thus, the courts below have addressed the defence of the accused both on facts and question of law in proper perspective and no case is made out to exercise revisional jurisdiction of this Court in this case. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.