BUDIHAL R.B., J.

1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Madikeri, in C.C. No. 2248/2002 and also the judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu in Criminal Appeal No. 61/2007.

2. Brief facts of the case of the respondent complainant before the Trial Court are that the respondent complainant filed a private complaint stating that petitioner- accused was due for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant. The petitioner-accused agreed to pay the said amount and issued a cheque bearing No. 649583 dated 1.7.2002 drawn on State Bank of India, Madikeri. After issuance of the said cheque, he assured the complainant that, the above cheque will be honoured if it is presented for encashment. The respondent presented the said cheque for encashment on 7.10.2002, but it was returned with an endorsement 'insufficiency of funds'. The complainant issued a legal notice on 17.10.2002 calling upon the petitioner accused to repay the cheque amount. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner accused on 26.10.202. But he has not complied with the demand notice and replied with untenable reasons. Therefore, a case was filed against 8 accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act for short the 'N.I. Act'). After trial was conducted on behalf of the complainant, he himself has been examined as P.W.l and produced Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the defence one witness was examined and three documents as per Exs.D. 1 to D3 got marked. After considering the materials placed on record, ultimately, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his case and held that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the accused before the first Appellate Court in Crl. Appeal No. 61 /2007. The first Appellate Court also after re-appreciating the matter dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 15.10.2014. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders of the Courts below, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

3. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and also the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted that the procedure followed by the Trial Court in allowing the criminal case is not in accordance with law and the Trial Court allowed the accused person to file his affidavit by way of examination in chief, which itself is against the procedure and provisions of the N.I. Act. Hence, he submitted that the revision petition is to be allowed and the matter is to be remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration. In support of his contention, the 'earned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Tahkore, I (2010) SLT 133 : I (2010) BC 600 (SC) : I (2010) DLT (Crl.) 150 (SC) : I (2010) CCR 215 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 1402.

5. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent complainant made submission that regarding the contention that accused when preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court, he had not taken the contention that the Trial Court allowed the accused person to file his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, even looking to the materials itself, the accused himself filed the said affidavit and it was not as per the direction of the Trial Court. The learned Counsel also submitted that the case was of the year 2002. Hence, after long lapse of time, the accused is not permitted to raise such contention before this Court and submitted to dismiss the revision petition.

6. Perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and also the judgment an