THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 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)

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”).

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C. No. 195/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur.

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused and her husband approached the complainant seeking an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the urgent purchase of petrol for their petrol pump. Accordingly, the accused borrowed Rs. 3,00,000/- on 25.10.2008, and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28.01.2008 from the complainant. Towards repayment of the said amount, the accused issued Cheque No. 175636 dated 30.11.2008 for Rs. 3,00,000/-, and her husband issued Cheque No. 178034 dated 30.11.2008 for Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. Upon presentation, both cheques were dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient.” Consequently, the accused issued statutory notices to the accused and her husband. Despite the receipt of the said notices, none of them paid the cheque amount nor sent any reply. The complainant thereafter filed S.T.C. Nos. 1 of 2009 and 1444/2009 before the JFMC-II, Kannur, against the accused and her husband. Subsequently, the accused settled the matter by issuing a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/-, and the earlier proceedings were withdrawn by the complainant. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was also dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient.” Though a statutory notice dated 29.04.2010 was issued, the accused neither replied to the notice nor paid the cheque amount. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, the de facto complainant himself was examined as PW1. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P8. However, from the side of the defence, no evidence whatsoever was produced

5. 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 her accordingly. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.338/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thalassery, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same and confirmed the finding of guilt and conviction against the accused.

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

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and arrived at a finding of guilt without due application of mind. It was further argued that the complainant had failed to establish the transaction alleged in the complaint, as well as the due execution and issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. According to the learned counsel, the present complaint was foisted against the accused by misusing Ext.P1 cheque, which had been issued only as a security and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the