ORDER :

The petitioner is the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.178 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein.

2. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 18.05.2012 has convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.311 of 2012 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The appellate Sessions Court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 17.07.2014 has confirmed the conviction and modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year by reducing the same to imprisonment till rising of the court and in substitution of the amount of compensation, an amount of fine for the same amount of Rs.100,000/- has been imposed and default sentence clause was reduced to two months. The fine amount so realised was directed to be disbursed to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by these verdicts of both the courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by invoking the remedies under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Sri.S.Prasun, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/complainant and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent/State.

4. The gist of the case projected in the complaint is to discharge a debt owed by the accused to the complainant, the revision petitioner/accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.12.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn through his account and payable in favour of the complainant. The cheque when presented was dishonoured as per Exts.P2 and P3 bank memos on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Thereupon the complainant had caused to issue Ext.P4 statutory demand notice dated 16.01.2010 calling upon the accused to pay off the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice sent by registered post was received by the accused as per Exts.P5 and P6. The accused had sent a reply notice as per Ext.P7 contending that, denying the transactions alleged by in the demand notice and taking up the defence that the instant cheque was given by the accused to the complainant as signed blank one for security for some other transaction between the parties.

5. During the trial the complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

6. After hearing both sides in extenso and on going through the depositions and materials on record this Court is of the considered view that relevant and material aspects of the matter in favour of the accused, has been shut out by both the courts below and that such non consideration of crucial and material aspects in the matter has resulted in a grave illegality and impropriety in the rendering of the impugned judgments of both the courts below. This Court is of the considered opinion that, the factual findings made by the courts below convicting the petitioner, would amount to perversity and unreasonableness. Both the courts below have erred egregiously in convicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The reasons, for the said conclusions of this Court, are as follows:-

(A) The bald case set up by the 2nd respondent complainant in his complaint is that the revision petitioner was purportedly in acquaintance of the complainant and had allegedly entered into a previous transaction, but the transaction or its nature are neither pleaded nor brought out in evidence. Further it is state