P.D. Rajan, J.

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the concurrent judgment in Crl.Appeal No. 353/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was accused in C.C.No. 171/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam for offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant is the 1st respondent in this revision petition, his case is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,72,000/- from him and in discharge of that debt, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing. Even after receipt of notice, there was no repayment. In the circumstances, the above complaint was filed in the trial Court.

2. During trial, complainant examined his power attorney holder as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked as his documentary evidence. The accused denied the transaction and examined DW1 and marked Ext.D1. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under section 138 of the N.I. Act and compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- under section 357(3) Cr.P.C.