BIJU SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that eventhough the revision petitioner had a contention that the cheque in question was issued as security and the amount covered by Ext. P1 cheque was not due to the complainant, the complainant did not incline to produce the details of the accounts relating to the transaction between the complainant and the revision petitioner and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.