The revision petitioner in both these revisions is the accused in S.T No.4700 of 2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna. On the allegation that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the complainant for an amount of ₹ 2,35,000/- was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and he did not make payment of the cheque amount, in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner faced trial before the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court and claimed to be tried. Prosecution was initiated by the 1st respondent herein. One Salim, who is the power of attorney holder of the complainant, was examined as PW1 and he marked Exts.P1 to P4 (a) during trial. By way of defence evidence, the revision petitioner examined one Hafeed Rahman and also marked Ext.D1 reply notice.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of N.I.Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and he was also directed to pay a compensation of to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
₹ 1 lakh
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.A No.377 of 2005. Dis-satisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial court, the complainant filed revision before the Court of Session, Manjeri as Crl.R.P. No.71 of 2005. The appeal and the revision were heard together by the learned Sessions Judge and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6.2.2008. In Appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but enhanced the sentence and also enhanced the amount of compensation ordered. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal brought by the revision petitioner was dismissed, and the Criminal Revision brought by the 1st respondent was allowed in part. The sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for one week, and the amount of compensation was enhanced to ₹ 2,35,000/-. Now the accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P. No.797of 2014 is the revision brought by him against the conviction and sentence and the unnumbered revision is the revision brought by him against the order of the appellate court enhancing the sentence and compensation by allowing the complainant's revision in part. As it could not be filed in time, the complainant seeks condonation of delay of 2137 days in Crl.M.A No.2731 of 2014.
5. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find no scope or reason to admit Crl.R.P. 797 of 2014 to files. It is submitted from both sides that pending the proceedings, the parties amicably settled the whole dispute out of court and the revision petitioner has also made payment of some part of the compensation. Payment of fraction of the compensation wad admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant. The parties are not in a position to file composition because the complainant is said to be not in station. In such a circumstance, considered orders will have to be passed in the revision petition.
6. The witness examined on the side of the complainant has given definite and consistent evidence regarding the transaction in which the revision petitioner herein incurred liability and also regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. The said evidence stands not discredited. The evidence given by DW1 will not in any manner rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque or that it was bounced on some other ground. Ext.P4 notice was sent in time by the complainant. Of course, in Ext.D1 reply notice, the revision petitioner has disputed liability. But there is no satisfactory evidence to prove or probabilise the case pleaded by him in defence otherwise. I find that Ext.P1 cheque was executed and issued by the revision petitioner to the complainant in discharge of a legal enforceable debt and that it was bounced on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. I also find that the complainant had complied with the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution in this case. In such a circumstance, the conviction is only to be confirmed in revision also. I find no reason to interfere in the conviction on the ground of any illegality or irregularity.
7. The sentence originally imposed by the trial court in this case is imprisonment till rising of court and the amount of compensation awarded is ₹ 1 lakh. On a consideration of the various aspects including the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Sessions Jude found that the actual cheque amount is in fact due from the revision petitioner. It was in such a circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to the actual cheque amount. Finding that there is serious default on the part of the revision petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge also enhanced the sentence to simple imprisonment for seven days. In the particular facts and circumstances where the parties have settled the matter amicably, I feel that the sentence imposed by the trial court originally can be restored in the interests of justice and the revision petitioner can be granted some reasonable time to make payment of the balance amount of compensation. The request made to that effect by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is accepted.
8. In the result, Crl.R.P.797 of 2014 is allowed in part confirming the conviction, but modifying and reducing the jail sentence to imprisonment till rising of court as originally imposed by the trial court. The amount of compensation awarded by the appellate court in appeal is maintained. The default sentence imposed by the trial court is also maintained in revision. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for two months to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and to make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of compensation or enforce the default sentence. In case of payment of compensation directly to the complainant, authentic receipt shall be produced before the trial court to prove such payment.
In view of disposal of Crl.R.P.797 of 2014 as above, the unnumbered revision brought by the revision petitioner need not be entertained. I find that the affidavit does not contain satisfactory and convincing reason for condonation of delay. Crl.M.A.2731 of 2014 is dismissed and consequently, the unnumbered revision is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Actually the relief sought by the revision petitioner for reduction in sentence stands allowed in the other revision.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge