O R D E R

The revision petition is filed calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment in Crl.A.No.197/2009 of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manjeri (Appellate Court), confirming the judgment in C.C.No.158/2008 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna(Trial Court), holding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’, for the sake of brevity). The revision petitioner was the accused and the second respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court.

Relevant Factual Matrix:

2. The first respondent had filed the complaint before the Trial Court, alleging that the revision petitioner had issued Ext P2 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs.1,50,000/-. The cheque on presentation to the bank for collection, got dishonoured by Ext P3 memorandum due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the bank account of the revision petitioner. Although the second respondent had issued Ext P4 statutory lawyer notice, the notice was returned with an endorsement that ‘the addressee left’. The revision petitioner failed to pay the demanded am