The presumption favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.

1. This revision has been filed under S.397 and S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the CrPC' hereinafter), challenging judgment in S.T.No.66/2012, dated 30.10.2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Ettumanoor and also the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.108/2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - 1, Kottayam.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in the above case.

3. The respondents herein are the original complainant as well as the State of Kerala.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, on admission. Notice to the first respondent stands dispensed with.

5. I shall refer the parties as 'complainant' and 'accused', for convenience.

6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case put up by the complainant before the trial court is as under:
The complainant launched prosecution alleging commission of offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act' hereinafter), when cheque for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) dated 18.5.2012, allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant was dishonoured when the same was presented for collection, for want of funds.

7. The court below secured the presence of the accused for trial and during trial, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainant. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under S.313(1)(b) of the CrPC and opportunity was provided to him, to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D2 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the defence.

8. Earlier, the trial court found that the accused committed offence punishable under S.138 of the NI Act and accordingly, he was convicted. But the said conviction was challenged before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, by filing Crl.Aappeal No.126/2016. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the matter back to the trial court, by giving opportunity of the accused to examine the Scientific Assistant also.

9. Thereafter, DW3 was examined. The court below given emphasis to the evidence of PW1 and Ext. P1 to hold that the complainant discharged his initial burden in the matter of transaction which led to execution of Ext.P1 cheque. The court below also negatived the contention raised by the accused that Ext.P1 is a blank signed cheque issued by the accused to the mother of the complainant, who was examined as DW1 as one mentioned in Ext.D1. Finally, the trial court again convicted the accused as per judgment, dated 30.10.2021. The said conviction was challenged before the appellate court in Crl.Appeal No.108/2021 and the learned Appellate Judge also confirmed the conviction by modifying the sentence for a day till rising of the court.

10. The learned counsel for the accused argued at length to convince this Court that the evidence of DW1 and PW1 in the matter of issuance of Ext.P1 cheque would probabilise the case of the accused and the courts below ought to have disbelieved the case of the complainant and appraised the case put up by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, in this matter, during cross examination, PW1 given evidence that there was no financial transaction between the accused and his mother. But later, when the mother was examined as DW1, she had admitted Ext.D1, receipt issued by her, in her own handwriting and also acceptance of a blank signed cheque issued by the accused at the time of Ext.D1 transaction. According to the learned couns