In this Revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. 11 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Vadakara for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 challenges he conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him by the courts below.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant in the private complaint filed by him can be summarised as follows:

The complainants son is a B.Ed trained hand. When the complainant enquired with the accused whether his son could get a teachers post in any of the high schools in the area, the accused made him believe that his family has got the right to appoint qualified hands to teachers post in the K.R. High School, Purameri and demanded Rs. 1,75,000/- as donation to the management of the school. He also insisted that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has to be given as advance. Accordingly, during the month of October 1995 the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter during the month of Nov. 1995 he paid another sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The payments were made through one Jayadevan who is a common acquaintance of both the complainant as well as the accused. Since the accused could not arrange the teachers post as promised the complainant demanded the money back. Thereupon, the accused issued two cheques, one dated 4-7-1997 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and another cheque dated 4-8-1997 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- drawn on the Pappinisseri Co-operative Bank Limited. When the cheques were presented for collection they were dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Eventhough the accused received the statutory notice issued by the complainant, he did not pay the amount nor did he sent a reply to the notice. Hence, the complaint.

3. The courts below have concurrently found that Exts. P1 and P2 cheques when presented before the drawee bank within the period of their validity were dishonoured by the bank for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and the statutory notice issued within time was duly received by the accused who neither paid the amount nor sent a reply. The above findings are not assailed before me.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused made the following submissions before me in support of the Revision:-

Even according to the complainant a sum of Rs. 75,000/-was given to the accused for securing employment to the post of a teacher in an aided High School at Purameri in Vadakara. The said amount can only be termed as bribery for procuring employment in an aided school. Such an agreement is void ab initio since the consideration for the same is opposed public policy within the meaning of Sec. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. If so, Exts. P1 and P2 cheques are not supported by consideration since the promise for the same is illegal. Both the complainant as well as the accused are in pari delicto. The complainant was thus not entitled to recover the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 cheques both of which are tainted with the same illegality as the original agreement. It cannot be contended that Sec. 65 of the Contract Act comes to the rescue of the complainant. Sec. 65 of the Contract Act cannot have any application to a situation as the present where the agreement itself is void ab initio. Sec. 65 will be attracted only if the agreement is discovered to be void subsequently or where the contract subsequently becomes void. Even at the time of entering into the agreement it was void abinito since the consideration for demanding the money was for an illegal purpose and opposed to public policy. Hence, there is no question of the agreement subsequently being discovered as void. Since the agreement was void ab initio there was no question of any contract coming into existence so as to become void within the meaning of Sec. 65 of the Contract Act. (See Veerender Singh v. Laxmi Narain -2007 Crl. L.J