The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.287/1991 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, wherein the respondent herein has been indicted for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Ext.P-1 dishonoured cheque dated 30.10.1990 is for Rs.50,000/-. The trial court as per the judgment rendered on 25.8.2003 has convicted the 1st respondent-accused for the above said offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.50,500/-and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On realisation of the above said fine amount of Rs.50,500/-, it is ordered that an amount of Rs.50,000/-shall be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred Crl.A.No.450/2003 before the appellate Sessions Court, Kottayam. The appellate court concerned (Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 18.6.2004 has allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the accused and has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him as per the impugned judgment and has set him at liberty. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the appellate Sessions Court, the complainant had preferred Criminal Leave Petition No.631/2004 before this Court seeking special leave of this Court under Sec.378(4) of the Cr.P.C so as to impugn the said judgment. This Court as per order dated 18.10.2004 had allowed the said plea and had granted special leave to the complainant. It is on this basis that the instant Criminal Appeal has been filed.

2. Heard Sri.M.J.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant, Sri.V.N.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

3. The gist of the allegations in the complaint is to the effect that the complainant and the accused were colleagues in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and that they were known to each other and that the accused had requested the complainant to advance a personal loan of Rs.50,000/-and the said amount was advanced by the complainant to the accused in July, 1990 with the assurance that the said loan amount would be repaid on demand. In discharge of the said liability, the accused has issued the instant Ext.P-1 cheque dated 30.10.1990 for Rs.50,000/-drawn from his account and payable in favour of the complainant and the cheque when presented resulted in dishonour as per dishonour memo dated 2.11.1990, pursuant to which, the complainant issued statutory demand notice dated 3.11.1990 calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The said notice sent by registered post was evaded by the accused and that the postal authorities had later returned the said registered notice on the ground that the house of the accused/ addressee was found locked during the period in question. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant has filed the instant complaint on 29.11.1990.

4. During trial, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exts.P-1 to P-6 documents. The defence has adduced evidence through DWs 1 & 2, who are officials of the Postal Department. The defence also marked Ext.D-1 document.

5. Both the courts below have found that the complainant has given the credible evidence to show the borrowal transaction of Rs.50,000/-in the month of July, 1990 and that Ext.P-1 cheque dated 30.10.1990 for Rs.50,000/-from the account of the accused was duly issued and executed by him, in favour of the complainant. The accused had taken up the defence during the cross-examination of PW-1 that no such borrowal transaction as alleged by the complainant has taken place in July, 1990 and that he has never voluntary executed Ext.P-1 cheque as allege