A cheque for ₹ 50,000/- issued by the revision petitioner herein in discharge of a debt was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and when he failed to make payment of the cheque amount as demanded by the complainant, he preferred complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty. During trial, the complainant (1st respondent herein) examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C also, the revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances, but, he did not adduce any evidence in defence to probabilise his case that he had no transaction or dealings with the complainant, and that the cheque in question was handed over to the father of the complainant in another transaction.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty and on conviction, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court. He was also directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he approached the Court of Session,Thodupuzha with Crl.A. No.154 of 2011. In appeal, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal on 18.3.2013. Now the revision petitioner is before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. In spite of notice on admission, the 1st respondent (complainant) did not turn up to contest the revision.
6. The complainant examined as PW1 has given consistent and satisfactory evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of ₹ 50,000/-
and also proving execution of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. The fact of dishonour is spoken to by the complainant. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will also show that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.
7. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and it was received by the revision petitioner. He has no explanation why he did not send reply to the notice, and he has also no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. As regards dishonour, the revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that his cheque was bounced on some other ground. The evidence given by the complainant, on facts, including the reason for dishonour, transaction and execution of cheque, stands not discredited. There is absolutely no materials to rebut the presumption available to him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find that the complainant has well proved the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner with all necessary elements and ingredients including compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution. I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety for interference in the conviction or in the sentence. The sentence imposed by the courts below is only the minimum possible under the law, and the direction to pay compensation will do justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action. Accordingly, I find that the revision is liable to dismissed in limine.
8. 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. I feel that some reasonable time can be granted in the particular circumstances where the amount is ₹ 50,000/-. The complainant did not turn up in spite of notice. I feel that a reasonable time for five months can be granted to make payment of the compensation.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for five months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence, and make payment of 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 the default sentence.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge