The main legal point established is the application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

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.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2,29,939/-. It bears the date 31.3.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of five months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month.

3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand, though addressed in the correct address of the petitioner and duly acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. The complainant examined PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4 series. The accused did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary. Though there was no response to the notice of demand, in the course of the trial an attempt was made to advance a contention that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but was issued only as security when the parties entered into transactions.

The blank signed cheque handed over by the petitioner to the complainant was being misutilised by the complainant, it was contended.

4. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently 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 judgments.

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 raises various contentions. First of all it is contended that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as security. On this aspect we have the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 is eminently supported by his ability to produce Ext.P2 cheque, which is admittedly drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account and which undisputedly bears his signature. Even admittedly, after the date of the cheque, portions of the amount have been paid. This also supports the allegation that there were transactions between the parties and amounts were outstanding and were payable on the date of issue of the cheque by the petitioner to the complainant.

6. The petitioner has no specific case as to what exactly is the amount payable on the date of the cheque or on the date of the complaint. A contention was raised that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh had been paid subsequent to the date of the cheque. The complainant did not dispute that fact. Receipt of an amount of Rs.1 lakh is not disputed by the complainant. The courts below took this fact into consideration and directed payment of a compensation realistically taking into consideration the payment of Rs. 1 lakh which was admittedly made after the date of the cheque.

7. The evidence of PW1 is further supported eminently by the absence of response on the part of the petitioner when he received the notice of demand. The notice of demand, it is seen, is addressed to the petitioner in the address, Proprietor, Mahe Hardwares and Paints, Mahe, Palackal. The acknowledgment card is produced as Ext.P4(b), which shows that the notice of demand has been acknowledged with the signature of someone with the seal of the said establishment affixed thereon.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his anxiety to down play the importance of the absence of response to the notice of demand, attempted to build up a contention that the signature in the acknowledgment card is not that of the petitioner. He requests that a comparison may be undertaken of the signature in the cheque vis-a-vis the signature in Ext.P4(b). I find absolutely no merit in this request. The very consistent case of the complainant is that the notice of demand was duly served on the petitioner. He had made assertions to that effect when he was in the