The

present

petitioner

was

accused

in

C.C.No.389/2005, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge &

J.M.F.C., Somwarpet, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

the `trial Court'). By its judgment dated 27.09.2013, the

trial Court convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `N.I.Act9)

and sentenced him accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the

trial Court was that on 12.03.2004, the accused who was a

known person to him, for his family necessity and to

secure a job for his sister, had availed a loan of a sum of

`5 lakhs, promising to repay the same within two months.

On the very same day, while availing the loan, the accused

had given a post-dated cheque with the date 13.05.2004

3

for the said amount. After the agreed period, when the

said cheque was presented for its realisation, the same

came to be returned with the Banker's endorsement as

`funds insufficient' in the drawer's account. Thereafter,

he issued a legal notice to the accused both under

Registered

Post

Acknowledgement

Due

and

under

Certificate of Posting. The notice sent through Registered

Post Acknowledgement Due returned unserved, whereas,

the notice sent through Certificate of Posting was served

upon the accused. In spite of the same, the accused

neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount

which constrained the complainant to institute a criminal

case

against

the

accused

in

the

trial

Court

in

C.C.No.389/2005 for the offence punishable under Section

138 of N.I.Act.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, charges were

framed against the accused for the alleged offence.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case, got

examined himself as PW-1 and got marked six documents

4

from Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the accused, neither any

witness was examined nor any documents were marked.

5. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its

impugned judgment dated 27.09.2013, convicted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

N.I.Act and sentenced him accordingly.

6. Challenging the said order, the accused has

preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.63/2013, before

the

learned

Prl.Sessions

Judge,

Kodagu,

Madikeri,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Sessions Judge's

Court'),

which

by

its

judgment

dated

07.03.2015,

dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of

conviction passed by the trial Court. It is against these

judgments of conviction, the accused has preferred this

revision petition.

7. The respondent is being represented by his

learned counsel.

5

8. Records from the trial Court and Sessions

Judge9s Court pertaining to the matter were called for and

the same are placed before the Court.

9. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner (accused) failed to appear before this

Court on several dates of hearing, this Court by its

reasoned order dated 24.05.2022, appointed learned

counsel - Sri. S. Javeed, as Amicus Curiae for the

petitioner/accused to represent him in this case.

10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from

both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

11. The only point that arises for my consideration

is,-

<Whether the impugned judgments

suffer

from

perversity,

illegality,

impropriety warranting any interference at

the hands of this Court=.

12. The learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner in his

argument canvassed only two points that the cheque at

6

Ex.P-2 was materially altered in the year of the cheque, as

such, by virtue of the material alteration, it has not been

authenticated by the drawer of the cheque and the said

instrument becomes invalid.

His second contention was that the brother-in-law of

the father of the accused had stolen the cheque since he

was not in good terms with the father of the accused and

later, he got the said cheque produced through the

complainant, who was his good friend. With this, he

submits tha