K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. This revision petition was filed by the petitioner/accused in Criminal MP No.118/2013 in CC No.35/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Mavelikkara.

2. When the revision petition came up for admission, I felt, on considering the question involved, that there is no necessity to call for the records or to issue notice to the first respondent and thought that the revision itself can be disposed of at the admission stage and so, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with and the records are not called for.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of a cheque, alleged to have been given by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforcible debt, on 7.2.2010. The case of the complainant was that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" and in spite of notice issued, intimating the dishonour and demanding p