The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the complainant, including legal notices, replies, and witness testimonies, proved the guilt of the accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Chikmagalur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court"), in Criminal Case No.3112/2006 for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act") and was convicted for the said offence by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 22/5/2010. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Sessions Judge's Court") in Criminal Appeal No.132/2010. The appeal was contested by the respondent who was the complainant in the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge's Court in its order dtd. 30/11/2011 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court dtd. 22/5/2010 in C.C.No.3112/2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, for a valid consideration, the accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- dtd. 17/2/2006 drawn on Chikmagalur District Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office Branch, Chikmagalur, and bearing No.014896 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented for its realisation by the complainant through his banker, came to be returned unpaid with a banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount. However, the accused did not pay the cheque amount, but sent an untenable reply, which made the complainant to institute a criminal case in C.C.No.3112/2006 in the Trial Court against him, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused appeared through his counsel and contested the matter.

4. To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-11. The accused got himself examined as DW-1 and also got examined one Mr. Suresh as DW-2 and no documents were got marked from his side.

5. The Trial Court after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dtd. 22/5/2010 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to the complainant and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.132/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge's Court, which after hearing both side, by its impugned judgment dtd. 30/11/2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, while confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

6. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused failed to appear before this Court on several dates of hearing and also considering the fact that this revision petition is nearly nine years' old, this Court by its detailed order dtd. 12/2/2021, appointed learned counsel - Smt. Archana K.M., as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner to defend his case.

7. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise fo