The legal principle established is that the presumption under Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be upheld if the accused fails to rebut it with credible evidence, and the compensation amount in cases under Sec.138 can include the cheque amount plus interest.

This revision is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kochi, in Calendar Case, C.C.No.1073/2002. The trial court, while convicting the petitioner, had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had further directed that he should pay compensation of Rs.2.4 lakhs, which shall be payable to the complainant as per Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof, the petitioner was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. The appellate court (Court II Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam) as per the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2007 in Crl.Appeal No.440/2006, while affirming the conviction, had modified the sentence by ordering that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.4 lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default of which, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is this conviction and sentence that is impugned in the instant revision petition.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a partnership firm dealing in the business of the wholesale textiles and that the accused is the proprietor of the firm, by name, "M/s.Kuttichakku Lona Anthony Sons", which used to purchase goods on credit basis from the complainant and that, during the course of the said dealings between the parties, a sum of Rs.1,97,900/- was payable by the accused to the complainant. That thereupon the accused has issued a cheque drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Thrissur, for the said amount and on being presented, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Statutory notice was issued, to which the accused had not responded, which resulted in the institution of the instant complaint.

4. The partner of the complainant firm was examined as P.W-1 and the complainant had also adduced documentary evidence as Exts.P-1- to P-6. The accused had adduced evidence as DW1 and had produced Exts.D-1 and D-2 documents. P.W-1 had deposed that the accused had purchased textiles goods on credit basis from the complainant firm and to pay the liability in that regard, the accused had issued Ext.P-2 cheque for Rs.1,97,900/-, which resulted in the dishonour and the institution of the impugned complaint. It was sought to be suggested by the defence during the cross examination of P.W-1 that the accused is not the proprietor of the firm concerned and that it was a firm, which was already dissolved and that the accused did not purchase any goods from the complainant and that the accused had not issued any such cheque. However, the signature of the cheque was not denied. It was not suggested by the defence as to, on what circumstances the cheque happened to be in the custody of the complainant. In the written statement filed by the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., he had stated that the firm in question was one to which his father and uncles were partners and there were disputes between the partners and that the hostile partners had fraudulently taken blank cheques and conspired to foist false case. However, while giving sworn evidence as D.W1, the accused deposed that the cheque was somehow lost. Since the signature on the cheque was admitted and there was no credible explanation as to how the cheque reached the custody of the complainant, the trial court found that these circumstances would go a long way to prove the issuance and execution of the cheque. Moreover, the trial court found that the evidence tendered by P.W-1 is credible and believable, wherein P.W-1 had clearly stated that the accused used to purchase goods and had issued the present cheque. It is also on record that the accused had admitted that his father was doing business