1. The petitioner is the accused for offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act in C.C.No.118 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 29.6.2015 has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs (which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque) to the complainant as compensation in terms of S.357(3) of Cr.P.C and in default to pay compensation, the accused have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing Crl.A.No.297 of 2015 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, N.Paravur. The appellate court as to the impugned judgment rendered on 28.02.2017 has dismissed the appeal and has thereby confirmed the impugned conviction and sentence. Challenging the concurrent verdicts of both the court below the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Ss.397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri.Carlton Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R2 State. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R1 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.

3. The gist of the allegation of the complaint is that the complainant and accused were on friendly terms and that the accused had requested the complainant to advance an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs as his personal loan for a period of six months and on this basis the accused had borrowed the said amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the complainant on 27.9.2009 and after the expiry of the agreed period, the complainant had demanded back the amount upon which the accused had executed and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 29.01.2010 for and amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The cheque when presented for encashment was returned by the bank with the endorsement “No account, account closed”. Thereupon the complainant had issued Ext.P4 statutory demand notice dated 9.3.2010 calling upon the accused to pay the above said amount covered by the dishonoured cheque within 15 days. Though the said notice was duly served on the accused, he had not issued any reply and that he had not repaid the amount etc. On this basis petitioner after complying with the formalities like application complaint which has led to the file in question.

4. During the trial the complainant was examined as PW1 and PW2 (Bank Manager) entered and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. The defence have examined as D.Ws 1 to 3 (out of which DW3 is the accused). Exts D1 and D2 documents were also marked on behalf of the defence. X1 is the court exhibit.

5. PW1 has deposed broadly in terms of the contents of his complaint. By confronting PW1, the suggestion of the defence was that there was no such account with the bank as alleged by the complainant and that the signature seen in Ext.P1 cheque does not belong to the accused and further that the accused has not borrowed any amount from the complainant and that the complainant has falsely filed this case etc. Yet another contention raised by the defence is that the accused had not received the statutory demand notice as provided under S.138 proviso (b) of the N.I. Act and that the address shown in the complaint is not his address. Later, defence has also put forward altogether a new case at the time of the examination of the accused as DW3 that he had handed over three blank signed cheques including Ext.P1 cheque to one of his friend, one T.R. Sivadasan, in connection with the purchase of a vehicle as security and that Ext.P1 cheque has later been misused by the complainant etc.

6. Even though PW1 (complainant) was intensely cross examined, the Trial Court has specifically noted th