In cheque dishonor cases, the accused must rebut the statutory presumptions in favor of the complainant, as established under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C' for convenience). Revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.No.366/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery. The revision petitioner impugns the judgment dated 26.10.2019 in the above case, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad in Crl.Appeal No.93/2019 dated 30.09.2022. The 1st respondent is the original complainant before the trial court and the 2nd respondent is State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Notice to the 1st respondent stands dispensed with.

3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as to their status before the trial court as `complainant' and `accused'.

4. Short facts of the case:

Consequent to dishonour of cheque for Rs.1,09,550/- dated

03.12.2016, alleged to be issued by the accused to the complainant towards the balance price of gold purchased from the complainant Chemmannur Fashion Jewellers, the complainant initiated prosecution through its power of attorney holder, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `N.I Act' for short).

5. The trial court ventured the matter and recorded evidence. During trial, PW1 examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

6. Though opportunity was given to the accused to adduce evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, he did not adduce any evidence.

7. The trial court believed the evidence given by PW1 to the effect that Ext.P2 cheque was issued for discharge of Rs.1,09,550/- towards the balance of the price of the gold ornaments purchased by the accused from the complainant for a total sum of Rs.3,05,650/-. The trial court observed that the evidence of PW1 categorically established the case put up by the complainant and accordingly the benefit of twin presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act was given in favour of the complainant.

8. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,09,550/- and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.

9. The matter was taken in appeal before the Sessions Court, Wayanad. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence concurred with the finding of the trial court and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

10. The learned counsel for the accused stressed ground No.C in the Revision Petition, as extracted hereunder:

"The petitioner purchased gold ornaments for the marriage of his friends daughter from the complainant for an amount of Rs.3,27,500/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty seven thousand five hundred only). He paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the jewellery at the time of purchasing the gold. He should have paid an amount of Rs.1,27,500/- after the marriage of his daughter. For the prompt re-payment, the petitioner issued a blank cheque after put his signature on it to the complainant. After the marriage of his friend's daughter he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant jewellery. The friend of the petitioner failed to repay balance amount of Rs.27,500/- instead of filing case for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.27,500/- the jewellery filed case for Rs.1,09,500/- by making false entry on the cheque. Though it was suggested by the petitioner PW1, it was denied. All the transactions were done from the jewellery itself. Therefore the petitioner was not in a position to adduce any evidence about the total value of gold ornaments purchased and the amount repaid by the friend of the petitioner to the jewellery. Though all these facts were come out in evidence the courts be