----------------- The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. On the complaint of the second respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Palakkad, alleging the said offence the revision petitioner faced prosecution in C.C. No. 727/2010. The case of the complainant is that three cheques issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a total amount of Rs. 30,000/- borrowed by him were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount.
2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court, and when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C also he denied the incriminating circumstances. The complainant examined himself as PW1, and also marked Exts. P1 to P12 during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and was also directed to pay the total cheque amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation 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, Palakkad with Crl.A.No.121/2012. In appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -IV, Palakkad confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. However the direction to pay compensation was maintained in appeal. Now the accused challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction by way of this revision.
4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records I find no reason or scope for admitting the revision to files. The complainant has given consistent evidence regarding the alleged borrowal of Rs. 30,000/- by the revision petitioner and also regarding the issuance of the Ext. P1 to P3 cheques in discharge of the said amount. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited. The accused did not adduce any evidence to prove or probabilize his case set up in defence that 3 cheques leaves were in fact stolen by the complainant from his possession to file a complaint like this. All suggestions made to that effect were denied by the complainant. Exts. P4 to P6 documents will show that the three cheques in question were bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner does not have a case otherwise that the cheques were bounced on some other ground or that he had insufficient funds in his account.
5. The Exts. P7 to P9 statutory notices were sent by the complainant well within time, and the complaint was also filed by him in time. Thus it is seen that he had complied with the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. Dishonour of three cheques on the ground of insufficiency of funds stands well proved in this case, and I find that the conviction is only to be confirmed in revision also.
6. I find no reason for interference in sentence also, because the jail sentence already stands reduced to the minimum possible under the law by learned Sessions Judge. Direction to pay compensation was made by the court below with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant who has not so far initiated the civil action. The said direction is only to be maintained in revision also.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a request for some reasonable time to make payment of the compensation. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that a reasonable time for 3 months can be granted to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation. Subject to this direction the revision can be dismissed in limine.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted files. However the revision petitioner is granted time for three months 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 the default sentence.
P UBAID, JUDGE sab