The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Section 138, and the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the compensation awarded.

T. M. Hassan Pillai, J. : Heard.

2. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below (holding the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended (for short the Act) are under challenge in this revision preferred by the convicted accused. The 2nd respondent filed complaint against revision petitioner alleging commission of an offence under Sec. 138 of the Act by him and the gist of the allegation made against the (revision petitioner) was that an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was owed by him to the 2nd respondent and in discharge of his liability the revision petitioner issued Ext. P-1 cheque drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Kizhakkambalam Branch and that cheque was returned by the drawer bank unpaid with the remark "insufficient fund" when presented for collection. On receipt of the information 2nd respondent issued registered notice (Ext. P-6) demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque in question within 15 days of receipt of that notice. He also sent notice under certificate of posting and it was received by the revision petitioner. It was the further case of the 2nd respondent that though registered notice was sent on the correct address, the notice was returned with the endorsement `unclaimed'. It was also asserted in the complaint that within one month of arising of cause of action complaint was filed.

3. The revision petitioner's defence case was that signed cheque kept in the office of revision petitioner (he was at that time Secretary of the Kunnathu Nadu Service Co-operative Society) was stealthily removed by the 2nd respondent.

4. In support his case, the 2nd respondent got himself examined as P.W. 1 and examined on his side P.W. 2 who is the bank manager of the Kizhakkambalam branch of State Bank of Travancore. Documentary evidence produced by P.W. 1 was Exts. P-1 to P-7.

5. The trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that 2nd respondent established his case that revision petitioner committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act and on conviction trial Court imposed on the revision petitioner simple imprisonment for one year and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/-.

6. The revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 572/2000 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the learned Sessions Judge on reappraisal of evidence affirmed the order of the conviction passed by the trial Court. However, the Appellate Court interfered with the sentence awarded by the trial Court and reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to 15 days simple imprisonment and compensation awarded was enhanced to Rs. 1,52,000/- with a direction that Rs. 1,49,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and the entire balance amount "shall be credited to the State as compensation for the loss suffered by the State in terms of judicial time and resources spent for the resolution of the controversy between the parties."

7. Since the concurrent findings on facts recorded by the Courts below are under challenge in this revision, this Court will interfere only if it is brought to the notice of this Court glaring feature which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. So the question that is to be decided is whether glaring feature is brought to the notice of this Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

8. I agree with the Courts below that cogent and trustworthy evidence has been adduced by the 2nd respondent to prove his case of issuance of Ext. P-1 cheque dt. 13.1.1997 towards discharge of the debt or the liability of Rs. 1,45,000/- owed by the revision petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The evidence adduced by the complainant also proved that Ext. P-1 cheque when presented for encashment was returned with remarks `insufficient fund' and `the account closed' (Ext. P-2 memo also evidenced that fact).

9. P. W. 1 (complai