Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner herein took an amount of Rs.2,90,000/-, as advance to sale a plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lecha, situated at Convoy Road, Niz Kadamoni, Dibrugarh from the respondent/complainant in November, 2009. But however the respondent/complainant after knowing the fact that the land is a disputed one, she demanded return of the advanced amount taken from her as against which the petitioner issued two cheques: one on 11.06.2010, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-and another on 30.06.2010 amounting to Rs.1,90,000/-, totaling Rs.2,90,000/-. While the complainant deposited the said two cheques in her account at Central Bank, Dibrugarh but the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

3. The respondent/complainant issued a legal notice on 19.08.2010, demanding payment of the dishonoured cheques from the petitioner but despite serving of notice, the petitioner did not pay the amount for which she filed a complaint case being Case No.458C/2010, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded for the trial. The present petitioner being the accused, faced the trial and denied the charge. In course of the trial, the respondent/complainant examined herself as witness and exhibited certain documents in support of her case. The petitioner however adduced no any rebuttal evidence. The learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, with a fine of Rs.20,000/-as compensation, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years, through the order dated 04.06.2013.

5. The challenge that was made against the Trial Court’s order dated 04.06.2013, also stands dismissed by the order of the appellate Court dated 09.03.2015.

6. After losing in two forums, the accused/petitioner has preferred the present revision petition challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.48(3)/2013, on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Further ground of challenge is that the complainant/respondent has not proved the matter of dishonour of cheques by adducing the evidence of Bank Officials and also the fact that the case was filed after submission of the cheques before the Bank for the second time which is also bad in law. Another contention that has been raised that the petitioner is deprived of cross-examining the complainant/respondent, which has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner.

7. I have heard the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court on the same very ground that has been incorporated in the petition, a submission has been made that the petitioner ought to have been provided reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated all the materials on record in proper perspective of law and facts.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has however submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he is duly participated in the trial and himself was negligent in attending the Court for which the Court cannot be blamed. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court has given proper opportunity to the defence side (the petitioner herein) to cross-examine the witnesses which has been reflected from the order sheet of the Court and the said aspect has been taken into account by the learned Appellate Court and there is no