The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1243/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Muvattupuzha, for offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 18.4.2016 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.65,000/- and in default thereof, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. An amount of Rs.64,000/-, out of the fine amounts so realised, was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.156/2016 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 16.5.2017 had upheld the conviction and had also confirmed the sentence, thereby dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under S.397 read with S.401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri. R. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petition (accused) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this revision, notice to R-1 will stand dispensed with.

3. The brief of the allegation in the complaint is that for clearing a liability of Rs,60,000/-, the petitioner accused had issued the instant Ext.P-1 cheque dated 28.2.2013 for Rs.60,000/- and that the cheque when presented was dishonoured by the bank concerned as intimated by Exts.P2 and P-3 memos on the ground of insufficiency of funds and then returned to the complainant on 1.3.2013 as per Ext.P2 and P-3 memos. The complainant had issued Ext.P-4 statutory demand notice dated 20.3.2013 calling upon the complainant to pay off the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days’ time, etc. The said notice was duly served on the accused on 22.3.2016 as evidenced by Exts.P-5 and P-6. That since accused had not cleared the liability, the instant complaint was initiated after complying with the statutory requirement in that regard.

4. During the trial, the power of attorney holder of the complainant company was examined as P.W-1 and the manager of the complainant company, who was directly in charge of the transaction was examined as P.W-2. The prosecution has marked Exts.P-1 to P-11 documents. The defence has marked Ext.D-1 document. The defence has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. Both the courts below found that P.W-1 (power of attorney holder) did not have any direct knowledge in the transaction in question as he was not in charge in the affairs of the business at the relevant time. The business manager of the company, who was in charge of the transaction, was examined as P.W.-2. It has come out in evidence that one Ranjithkumar, son of the accused, subscribed a chit sala amount of which was Rs.5 lakhs and that chit was auctioned by him on 25.10.2009 for Rs.3.75 lakhs and that the accused as the father of the said subscriber, had executed an agreement as guarantor in that transaction as per Ext.P-10. That the subscriber (son of the accused) had defaulted for 2 instalments of Rs.25,000/- each on 25.1.2011 and 25.2.2011. Since the subscriber had not cleared the defaulted amounts, the accused, being the father of the subscriber, who was also the surety, had volunteered to come forward to pay off the liability owed by his son by issuing cheque dated 28.2.2016 for Rs.60,000/-, which was the total liability owed by the subscriber to the complainant firm. The defence put forward by the accused was that the subscriber had not owed the liability and had cleared the liability. Ext.D-1 is the passbook. It has been deposed by P.W.-2 that even Ex