ORDER :

The accused in CC Nos.659, 660, 1009, 1010, 1011 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC (V Court), Mangaluru, is in Revision Petition challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction, confirmed in Criminal Appeal Nos.131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2012.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under :

Five private complaints came to be filed contending that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short]. It is contended that in respect of the dues payable by the accused to the complainant, following cheques were issued :

The cheques on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Complainant issued statutory legal notices calling upon the accused to make the payment as per the cheques issued. The Notices came to be returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaints. The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.

3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and plea was recorded and as the accused did not plead guilty, trial was held. The learned Magistrate for the sake of convenience, clubbed all the cases and recorded a common evidence and disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 27.09.2014. The complainant in lieu of his examination in chief filed affidavit re-iterating the complaint averments and in all marked 30 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-30. Accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.PC., was recorded wherein the accused denied all the incriminatory materials that were put to him. It is also pertinent to note that the accused failed to lead any oral evidence on his behalf.

4. The learned Magistrate on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, after hearing the parties convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and in respect of all the cheques, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was ordered with a default sentence of three months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is defrayed as prosecution expenses to the State.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the accused preferred appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2012, referred to supra. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge after securing the records and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and order of sentence. It is those judgments, which are the subject matter of this Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that both the courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused holding that the complainant has proved the guilt of the Revision Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further contended that there was a wrong marking of the legal notices issued in four cases and only in one case, the legal notice was properly marked which has been ignored by the learned Magistrate as well as the first Appellate Court and therefore, the conviction is bad and prayed for allowing the Revision Petition.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Trial Court has properly taken into consideration the relevant materials on record and has allowed t