A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be overturned if evidence of timely issuance of a statutory notice is lacking.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. …................................... Crl.R.P.No.1075 of 2016 …......................................................... Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2025 ORDER Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short).

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in STC No.12532 of 2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Kannur.

3. The case of the complainant is that the accused, who is well acquainted with him, had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from him and has issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.08.2006 to discharge the said liability. When the cheque was presented for collection, it got dishonoured for the reason that the funds are insufficient. Even though, the complainant issued a statutory notice intimating the dishonour and demanding the amount covered by the cheque, it did not evoke any response. Hence, the complainant approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.

4. In the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined, and Ext. P1 to P5 documents were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. He stated that there was a transaction relating to a bus with him and the complainant, and the same was settled in mediation. At that time, the complainant was having possession of his two signed blank cheques. But the complainant did not return the cheques as promised and misused one among them, in the present case. From the side of the accused, he himself got examined as DW1 but, no documents were marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under of the NI Act. The accused was also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- under Section

357(3) of Cr.P.C., with a default clause.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.App.No.638 of 2011 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery. The said court by judgment dated 30.11.2015 dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Smt. Afrus Shabana, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. P. Maya, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

7. In the present case, the prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act is not within the stipulated time and therefore, the entire proceedings against the accused has to fail. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the attachment with Ext.P1 cheque would show that the complainant has received the intimation only on 21.02.2007 and therefore, the statutory notice issued, is within the stipulated time.

8. The specific case of the complainant is that Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.08.2006, was sent for collection through his bank, Pappinissery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kechery Branch and that the same got dishonoured on 09.02.2007. It is also his case that he received the intimation from his bank only on 21.02.2007. A perusal of Ext.P2 dishonour memo issued by the Syndicate Bank, (drawee bank) shows that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured on 09.02.2007, for the reason that funds are insufficient. But it is to be taken note that complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has received intimation/information from his bank, on 21.02.2007, regarding the dishonour of the cheque. The so called attachment in Ext.P1 cheque, has not been brought in evidence and the same will not in any manner s