Revision petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act impugns the order of conviction and sentence passed against him in this revision petition. But apart from the question of correctness, legality or propriety of the orders under challenge, yet another interesting question has cropped up for consideration in this case.

2. The question: Is the criminal court bound by the decree and judgment passed by a competent civil court holding that the cheque which was the subject matter of the criminal prosecution was not supported by consideration as alleged by the complainant-plaintiff and that the accused/defendant had not borrowed any money from the defendant at all?

3. In other words, the question is: Can a criminal court ignore the judgment and decree inter partes and decide the question of culpability of the accused solely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the criminal proceeding?

4. Before we deal with the above legal question, the essential facts which led to the prosecution case may be briefly noticed.

5. Respondent/complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated January 31, 1994 in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand notice was issued, the liability was not discharged.

6. The complainant got himself examined before the trial court as Pw.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on his side. The accused and his two witnesses were examined as Dws.1 to 3. The learned Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record found that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of an existing debt or liability and that it had been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account. Accordingly the accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of three months. It was directed that a sum of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant, if the fine amount was realised from the accused.

7. In appeal, the Sessions Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court. However the sentence of imprisonment was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. The accused was further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.45,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of the fine amount, the accused was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

8. The above order passed by the Sessions Court is under challenge in this revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the concurrent orders passed by the courts below on all conceivable grounds. However the learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the judgment and decree passed by a civil court in a suit relating to the very same cheque which is the subject matter of the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in a suit instituted by the complainant for recovery of the amount covered under Ext.P1 cheque, the civil court has held that the complainant/plaintiff had not been able to prove that the defendant had borrowed the sum indicated in Ext.P1 cheque or that Ext.P1 cheque had been issued by the accused/defendant in discharge of any debt as alleged by the plaintiff. In other words, the civil court categorically held that Ext.P1 cheque was not supported by consideration. True copy of the judgment passed by the subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal in OS.No.223/1995 has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure I. It is contended by the learned counsel that the above decree and judgment having become final, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner ca