K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. Accused in C.C.No.572/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, is the revision petitioner herein. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent against the revision petitioner, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

2. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that, revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.05.2007 and in discharge of that liability, he had issued Ext.P1 cheque. The cheque when presented was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient' vide Ext. P2 dishonour memo and the same was intimated to the complainant by his banker vide Ext.P3 intimation letter. The complainant issued Ext.P4 notice vide Ext.P5 postal receipt and the same was received by the revision petitioner evidenced by Ext.P6 postal acknowledgement. The revision petitioner had not paid the amount and he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence the complaint.

3. When the revision petitioner appeared before the court below, the particulars of offence were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on his side. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the complainant's evidence. He had further stated that, he had no such transaction with the complainant as claimed by the complainant and he had not issued any cheque as claimed by the complainant. Further, he had filed a detailed statement under Section 313(5) of the Code, in which he had raised the contentions that, during the year 1991, when he went abroad, he had entrusted two blank signed cheques to the complainant, who is none other than his brother-in-law, in order to enable him to get amount sent by him and pay the same to his wife as, she was not well versed in banking transaction. Thereafter, he came back in 2005 and settled all his dues with the complainant, but the cheques were not returned and mis-using one of the cheques so given, he had filed the present complaint. In order to prove his case, the revision petitioner himself was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court discarded the evidence of the revision petitioner stating that, it is not believable and believing the evidence of PW1 found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, till rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,20,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months. It is further ordered that, if the fine amount is realised, the same be paid to the complainant, as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.179/2012 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, which was made over to 6th Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below. Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner before this court.

4. This court has ordered notice before admission and without admitting the revision, the execution of sentence was suspended. Since first respondent had appeared through counsel, this court felt that, the revision can be admitted, heard and disposed of today itself. So the revision is admitted, heard and disposed of today after hearing both sides.

5. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehmentally argued that, under the