This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The cheque bears the date 05/03/1993. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was sent to the accused allegedly in the correct address. It was returned with the endorsement that the notice was not claimed. The complaint came to the court with this complaint scrupulously observing the statutory timetable. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. The accused examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. The accused examined Dws1 and 2 and proved D1 to D4.

2. Two contentions appear to have been raised before the courts below. The first contention is that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. There was a transaction between the complainant and the son of the accused. A blank signed cheque was handed over as security in that transaction. The liability under that transaction was already discharged but the blank signed cheque was not returned. It was misutilised by the complainant to stake the present false and untenable claim. This is the first contention.

3. Secondly, it was contended that the notice of demand was not issued in the correct address of the accused. It was sent in the address “Bhaskaran Nair, S/o. Shankaran Nair, Mukunda Sadanam, Manimooli, Nailambur”. That the name of the petitioner is Bhaskaran Nair is not disputed. There is no dispute regarding the father’s name also. That Mukunda Sadanam is a house belonging to the sisters of the wife of the complainant is not disputed. But according to the petitioner, he was not residing in Mukunda Sadanam and was instead residing in Ambika Sadanam in Edavanna village. He examined Dw1 and proved D1 to D3 to show the ownership of three houses in the same compound, which bear the name Ambika Sadanam. He examined DW2 and proved D4 in support of his contention that he resides in Edavanna village and not at Manimooli.

4. The courts below considered the above contentions anxiously and came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgment.

5. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions that were raised before the courts below. The first contention is found to be absolute without any merit. We primarily have the evidence of PW1 about the circumstances under which Ext.P1 cheque written on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account, with the admitted signature of the petitioner affixed thereon, found its way from the possession of the petitioner to the possession of the complaint. The oral evidence of PW1 is eminently supported his liability to produce such cheque Ext.P1. The theory advanced by the accused that Ext.P1 was handed over as a blank signed cheque as security when his son had entered into an earlier transaction cannot be readily swallowed. The defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently a suspicious one and must be approached with grant care and caution. If the laudable commercial morality which the legislature wants to usher in by introduction of Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the statute book were to prevail among the polity such an irresponsible, casual and indifferent approach by account holders deserves to be discouraged. No account holder is expected to deal with the cheques in such a casual, careless, irresponsible and indifferent manner. Such a defence may still not be impossible in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. But the burden must certainly res