Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision brought by the accused. Prosecution was initiated in the trial court by the 1st respondent herein. The case of the complainant is that a cheque for ₹ 1,75,000/- issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a debt incurred by him on 15.2.2010 was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court, and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and also marked Exts.P1 to P6 during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C also, the revision petitioner maintained a defence of denial, and he did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court and was also directed to make payment of a compensation of ₹ 1,75,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Kottayam as Crl.A No.391 of 2012. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pala did not make any interference in appeal, and thus the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 19.3.2014.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite evidence regarding the alleged borrowal of ₹ 1,75,000/- by the revision petitioner, and also regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited, and the revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence in defence to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that Ext.P1 cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. He has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground.
5. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant well within time and the complaint was also filed in time. Thus, I find that the complainant had complied with the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution, and the case on facts pleaded by him stands well proved. I find that the conviction in this case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is only to be confirmed.
6. The sentence imposed by the courts below also does not require any interference in revision because the sentence imposed is the minimum possible under the law. As regards the direction to pay compensation also, I find no reason for interference, because such a direction was made with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has no so far initiated civil action for realisation of the cheque amount. Thus, I find that this revision is only to be dismissed, without being admitted to files.
7. 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. I feel that a reasonable time of five months can be granted to make payment of the compensation. Subject to this direction, this 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 time for five months from today 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