O R D E R

Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.346/2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram. He assails the judgment in Crl.A No.219/2016 of Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram which confirmed the conviction and sentence against him in C.C No.346/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’).

2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that Ext.P1 cheque issued by the accused in discharge of the liability of the accused to pay an amount of ₹3 lakhs was bounced stating the reason “payment stopped by the drawer”. In spite of receipt of Ext.P4 lawyer notice, accused neither sent any reply nor paid the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque. Accused thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.

4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and denied issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of any debt or liability. His defence was that complainant, who was an employee in his shop, misused one of the signed blank cheques entrusted in connection with his business.

5. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P15 were marked. Accused got himself examined as DW1. DW2 was examined on his side.

Exts.D1 to D6 were also marked.

6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 N.I Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of ₹3 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C with a stipulation that in default of payment of compensation, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A.No.219/2016 was dismissed by the Sessions Court by confirming the conviction and sentence.

7. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is a cheque issued from the account maintained by the accused with the Corporation Bank, Vellayambalam Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. The accused would also admit his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. Exts.P2 is the memo issued from the Bank. Ext.P2 would show that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for the reason “payment stopped by the drawer”. Ext.P4 would reveal that upon receipt of Ext.P2 memo from the Bank, the complainant caused to issue lawyer notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonour of Ext.P1 cheque and demanding the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque.

8. The version of the complainant who was examined as PW1 is that on 26.01.2013, accused borrowed ₹3 lakhs from him to meet the marriage expenses of the daughter of accused and in discharge of the said debt, accused issued a cheque dated 28.01.2013 drawn on Vijaya Bank. Though he presented the said cheque for collection, it was bounced due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. Ext.P3 is the memo received from the bank. His further version is that when he intimated the factum of dishonour of the said cheque, the accused issued another cheque namely Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.2.2013 drawn on Corporation Bank, Vellayambalam Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. According to PW1, though he presented Ext.P1 cheque for collection, it was also returned dishonoured stating the reason “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”. Ext.P2 is the memo received from the Bank.

9. Per contra, the defence canvassed by the accused is that complainant was an employee in 'Bismillah Cold Storage' run by him; that he had entrusted signed blank cheques with the complainant and one such blank signed cheque was misused by the complainant. His case is that there was a property transaction between himself and the complainant whereby, he purchased the property of the complainant for a sale consideration of ₹20 lakhs. Subsequent to the execution of the said sale deed, complainant demanded an additional sale consideration of ₹3 lakhs by saying that the property would fetch more price. When the