The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of a cheque and its dishonour can lead to conviction under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the defense claiming the cheque was issued as security must be substantiated with credible evidence.

The petitioner is the accused for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Summary Trial Case, S.T.No. 67/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thodupuzha, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The trial court by the impugned judgment dated 17.3.2015 had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.61,350/- to the complainant under Sec. 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.70/2015 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned. The appellate court (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha) as per the impugned judgment rendered on 26.2.2016 had confirmed the conviction and has modified the substantive sentence by reducing the same to imprisonment till rising of the court, but has confirmed the fine amount. Challenging the abovesaid judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused was a subscriber of a chit transaction of Rs.1 lakh with the complainant company and the same prized for Rs.74,629/-. The revision petitioner had defaulted payments and hence notice was issued by the complainant company, to which the accused had responded by going to the office of the complainant and had issued Ext.P-8 cheque for Rs.61,350/- dated 8.3.2012 drawn from the account maintained by him, in favour of the complainant company, towards the arrears in the chit transaction. The said cheque on presentation was rejected for want of sufficient funds, to which the complainant had issued Ext.P-11 statutory notice dated 19.4.2012 demanding payment. The accused had issued a reply denying the liability for the amount of Rs.61,350/- and admitted only liability of Rs.45,000/-.

3. The power of attorney holder of the complainant company was examined as P.W-1 and deputy manager of the Kattappana branch of the complainant company, where transaction had been taken place, was examined as P.W.2, and Exts.P-1 to P-12 documents were marked. The defence had not examined any witnesses, but had marked Exts.D-1 to D-9 through P.W-2. The chit transaction of the accused with the complainant company is not seriously disputed in this case as the accused himself has admitted a liability of Rs.45,000/-. Both the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W-2, have deposed that the accused had prized the chitty for Rs.74,629/-. Exts.P-3, P-5 and P-6 are the promissory notes executed by the accused, debt acknowledgment and the guarantee agreement respectively produced in this case, which are all bearing date 10.12.2008, that is the date when he received the prized amount. P.W-2 Deputy Manager of the branch, where transaction had taken place, has clearly deposed that the accused had defaulted the payment and Ext.P-4 is the copy of the ledger extract showing the accounts, which would prove that the accused has defaulted payment. P.W-2 has also deposed that because of the default, the complainant company has issued Ext.P-7 notice, which was received by the accused, to which he issued Ext.D-2 reply. Both P.W-1 and P.W-2 have stated that upon receiving Ext.P-7 notice, the accused had issued Ext.P-8 cheque dated 8.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.61,350/-, which resulted in the instant dishonour.

4. It is not seriously in dispute that the cheque in question has been drawn on the account maintained by the accused and the signature of the accused is also not disputed. Ext.P-4 ledger extract would clearly show that the said amount mentioned in the cheque was due to the complainant. Though the accused has challenged its correctness, he has no case that he has paid more instalments than what has been shown in the said ledger statement. Bo