THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

(Dated this the 09th day of June, 2026)

1. The challenge in this revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”). The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.2658/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pala.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows: On 7/8/2011, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant and, on the same day, the accused issued a post-dated cheque dated 7/11/2011 towards the repayment of the said amount. However, when the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment, the same was returned dishonoured on 24/11/2011, stating the reason “funds insufficient”. Then the complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused, intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the cheque amount. Although the accused received the said notice, he has not paid the cheque amount. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. The exhibits produced from the side of the complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P7. On the side of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined. However, no documents were marked in evidence from the side of the defence.

4. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted him accordingly. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.111/2015 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kottayam, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part. While confirming the finding of conviction, the appellate court modified the sentence and reduced it to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The records have also been perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court recorded a conviction against the accused without properly appreciating the facts and evidence brought out in this case. According to the learned counsel, the complainant utterly failed in proving the transaction alleged in this case, as well as the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. The learned counsel further alleged that the source of the amount which the complainant had allegedly lent to the accused has not been proved, and hence the case of the complainant cannot be believed at all. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned judgment warrants interference.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the transaction alleged in this case, as well as the execution of Ext.P1 cheque, stands fully established by sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence, and hence no interference is required in the impugned judgment.

9. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the scope of interfere