1. The petitioner is accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.5185 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Ernakulam, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein.

2. Exhibit P2 dishonoured cheque dated 10.10.2007 is for Rs.94,350/-. The trial court, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 31.7.2014, had convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.94,350/- (cheque amount) and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further that the fine amount so realised was directed to be released to the complainant as compensation as per Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.24 of 2015 before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Ernakulam, who by the impugned judgment rendered on 23.6.2017 has dismissed the appeal and has thereby confirmed the impugned conviction and sentence in this case. It is aggrieved by the above said concurrent verdicts of both the courts the below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl. Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard Sri. Shaji Chirayath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri. Jestin Mathew, learned prosecutor appearing for the second respondent/State.

4. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this revision petition, notice to R1/complainant will stand dispensed with.

5. The gist of the case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are well known to each other and that on 9.11.2006, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- from the complainant. The said amount was handed over to the accused by a cash cheque bearing No.054807 dated 9.11.2006 drawn from the account of the complainant maintained in the State Bank of India, Tripunithura Branch. Further that the accused had encashed the said cheque on 9.11.2006 and had received cash from the Bank and that the accused had also executed a promissory note on the very same day (9.11.2006), promising to pay the said amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest thereon @12% per annum. When the said amount was demanded by the complainant, the accused had issued Exhibit P2 cheque dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.94,350/- in discharge of the said liability. The amount covered by the said cheque was reflecting the principal amount of Rs.85,000/- along with interest thereon. The cheque when presented resulted in dishonour and after following the requisite formalities, the complainant had issued statutory demand notice to the petitioner. No reply notice was sent by the accused to the statutory demand notice and therefore, the complainant had filed the instant complaint which led to the conduct of trial.

6. During trial, the complainant has examined PW1 and PW2 and has marked Exhibits-P1 to P8 documents. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The complainant has examined himself as PW1.

7. PW1 has broadly deposed in tune with the contents of his complaint. PW2 has deposed that he had seen the handing over of the cash cheque dated 9.11.2006 by the complainant to the accused which led to the initial borrowal transaction. Exhibit-P8 is the statement of accounts of the proprietary concern of the complainant maintained with the State Bank of India, Tripunithura Branch, for the period from 25.10.2006 to 9.11.2006. Both the courts below have found that Exhibit-P8 corroborates the complainant's version that he has given a cash cheque to the accused for an amount of Rs.85,000/-. Exhibit-P8 has not been challenged by the accused while cross examining PW1. The defence has not raised any suggestion that he is not the "George" mentioned in Exhibit-P8. F