1. The petitioner has been indicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in ST.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kollam, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, (Kollam Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.). Ext.P2 dishonoured cheque dated 22.10.2007 is for Rs.1,03,769/-. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 8.08.2014 has convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,70,000/-(which is also inclusive of the interest on the cheque amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the cheque), and in default of payment of fine the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the said total fine amount of Rs.1,70,000/- it has been directed that an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- shall be disbursed as compensation to the complainant as per Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2014 before the Appellate Sessions Court, Kollam. The Appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam) as per the impugned judgment rendered on 17.03.2017 has confirmed the conviction by reducing the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for four months to imprisonment till rising of the court and by enhancing the default sentence clause from three months to six months and also confirming the direction to pay the fine amount. The above said verdicts of both the courts below, are under challenge in this criminal revision petition.

2. Heard Sri.M.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.Bijith.S.Khan, learned counsel appearing for R2 (Kollam Co operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.) and Sri.Renjith Thampan learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Sri.Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1,State.

3. The brief of the case of the complainant is to the effect that the accused is one of the share holders of the complainant Bank and that he had availed a business loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on which he committed default in paying the instalment and that in discharge of his liabilities in that regard he had issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 22.10.2007 for Rs.1,03,679/- drawn from his account and payable to the complainant Bank and the cheque when presented resulted in dishonour as per Exts.P3 and P4 bank memos dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 and that the complainant Bank had thereupon issued Ext.P5 statutory demand notice dated 15.11.2007 calling upon the accused to pay off the amount covered by the cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice sent through Registered Post was duly served on the accused as per Exts. P6 and P7. The accused has sent Ext.P8 reply denying the liability. Thereupon the complainant Bank, after following the requisite formalities, had instituted the present complaint which resulted in the trial. During the trial the complainant had examined one of its officials who is the power of attorney holder, as PW1 and had marked Exts. P8 to P9 documents. The defence had marked Exts D1 to D3 series but had not examined any defence witness.

4. PW1 had deposed that the accused is one of the share holders of the complainant Bank and that he had availed a business loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and he had defaulted in paying the instalments thereof and that the accused had issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 22.10.2007 for Rs.1,03,679/- in discharge of that liability which resulted in dishonour etc. No serious contentions are raised by the petitioner as regards the findings made by both the courts below that the complainant Bank has satisfied the requisite formalities like issuance for statutory demand notice, etc. The main defence taken up by the accused was to the effect that Ext