ORDER

The accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 04/09/2010 in S.T.No.639 of 2008 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Sulthan Bathery and the judgment dated 06/12/2012 in Crl.A.No.228 of 2010 of the court of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner challenging the concurrent finding of the court below submitted that the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to prove the allegation against the petitioner, since his deposition contains full of contradictions, omissions and infirmities. According to me, there is no scope for the above contention in a revisional proceedings.

3. The specific case of the complainant is that, on an earlier occasion the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of `1,50,000/- from the complainant and when the revision petitioner failed to pay that amount, on demand he had issued a cheque which when presented dishonoured and thus he had approached the court by filing a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and thus S.T.