A cheque for `1,19,342/- issued by the second respondent herein, in discharge of the debt incurred by him by borrowal, was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount as demanded by the second respondent by statutory notice, the second respondent filed complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta, alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the said complaint the revision petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.7 of 2011. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance before the trial court, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined P.W.1 and marked Exts.P1 to P11 during trial. In defence, the revision petitioner examined himself with permission under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also marked Exts.D1 to D3 to prove partial discharge. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides, the learned magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of NI Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of `1,20,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the court of session, Wayanad, with Crl.Appeal No.145 of 2011. In appeal, the sessions judge, Kalpetta confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court, but the direction to pay compensation was maintained. Now, the accused in the trial court is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the case records, I find no ground or reason to admit this revision to files. P.W.1 examined on the side of the complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt, and also proving the execution of Ext.P1 in discharge of the said debt. This evidence on facts stands not discredited. The presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of NI Act stands not effectively rebutted by the evidence adduced by the revision petitioner. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque was dishonored due to 'insufficiency of funds'. This factual aspect is spoken to by P.W.1 also. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed in time. The authority of P.W.1 to file complaint and give evidence, stands proved by the documents produced from the side of the complainant. The revision petitioner has no explanation why he did not send reply to the statutory notice, and he has also not case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the statutory notice. Thus, I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and it was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case otherwise that it was bounced on some other ground, or that he had sufficient funds in his account. Compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution also stands proved. Thus, I find no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conviction or in the sentence, for interference in revision. The sentence imposed by the appellate court is the minimum possible under the law, and direction to pay compensation was made by the two courts with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action for the cheque amount.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation in the trial court. The time sought for is 'four months'. Of course, the other side raised some objection regarding the period. However, I feel in the particular circumstances, that four months can be granted to the revision petitioner as requested. Subject to this the revision can be dismissed in limine.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted four months time to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of compensation, or enforce defaulted sentence.
AMV/31/5/ Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE