AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2024 IN Crl.A NO.70 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT)-II, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.05.2022 IN ST NO.51 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, PALA

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.07.2026, THE COURT ON 08.09.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class MagistrateCourt -II, Pala, and the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kottayam, convicting and sentencing the petitioner herein for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (inshort, ‘ NI Act’), are under challenge in this revision petition.

The case relates to the dishonour of a cheque for an amountof Rs.8,75,000/- alleged to have been executed and issued by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent towards the discharge of a liability in connection with the the chitty amounts disbursed to the petitioner and his father. The petitioner and his late father were admittedly subscribers of the chitty conducted by the second respondent. Both of them bidded the chitty amount in the year 2008. Later on, the petitioner’s father passed away. The impugned cheque dated 16.04.2014 is alleged to have been executed and issued by the petitioner towards clearance of the outstanding amount due, in connection with the aforesaid chitty transactions with the second respondent. However, the petitioner would strongly dispute the execution and issuance of the aforesaid cheque. According to him, the second respondent had misused the signed blank cheques obtained from him at the time of disbursal of the chitty amount. The compliance of the statutory requirements of Sections 138 & 142 of the NI Act are not in dispute. But the petitioner had strongly disputed the execution of Ext P8 cheque on the basis of which the second respondent launched the criminal prosecution againsthim.

Before the learned Magistrate, the Power of Attorney Holderof the second respondent was examined as PW1, and 13 documents were marked as Exts P1 to P13. From the part of the petitioner, one witness was examined as DW1, and two documents were marked as Exts D1 & D2. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-. The aforesaid finding of the learned Magistrate was upheld by the Appellate Court. It is against the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below that the petitioner is here beforethis Court with this revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and thelearned counsel for the second respondent.

The verdicts of the courts below are challenged by thepetitioner on the ground that there was no legally acceptable evidence adduced by the complainant in support of the averments in the complaint. It is further contended that the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate lacked the essential requirements for the institution of a complaint by a Power of Attorney Holder. The absence of any averment in the complaint and the proof-affidavit filed by PW1 about the direct knowledge of the Power of Attorney Holder (PW1) about the transactions which gave rise to the offence, is pointed out by the learned counsel forthe petitioner in support of the aforesaid challenge.

The only averment in the complaint about the competence ofthe Power of Attorney Holder to institute the said complaint, is contained in paragraph No.2 of the complaint. The aforesaid averment is extractedhereunder for the sake of convenience and easy reference

‘Complainant company is properly represented by its power of attorney holder K.R.Sibu, Legal Assistant, Power of Attorney having Authority torepresent the company and competent to sign and file his complaint’.

There is absolutely