This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl. Appeal No.581 of 2004 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner entered by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Cherthala in C.C. No.658 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.22,800/- from him on 29.1.2001 and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 5.2.2001. Dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P3 to P5. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in conducting Chitty business and in connection with that, he had given a signed blank cheque to one John. He suspects that the said John might have handed over the cheque to respondent No.1 and the latter misused it. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. Petitioner suggested his case to respondent No.1 which he denied. It is not disputed that the cheque is signed by petitioner and is drawn on the account maintained by him. His case that he handed over a signed blank cheque to one John is not proved or probabilised. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice.
