On a complaint made by the 2nd respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana alleging that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner for ₹ 2 lakhs in his favour in discharge of a liability was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and the revision petitioner failed to make payment in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner faced trial in C.C No.45 of 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty during trial and claimed to be tried. The complainant (1st respondent herein) examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P8 during trial. Though the revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was also directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 2 lakhs 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, Thodupuzha with Crl.A No.25 of 2013. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha confirmed the conviction, however, modified the sentence by reducing the jail sentence to imprisonment till rising of court. Direction to pay compensation was maintained. Now the revision petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence in 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 ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given satisfactory evidence proving the transaction in which a debt of ₹ 2 lakhs was incurred by the revision petitioner, and also proving the execution of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited in cross-examination. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The fact of dishonour is spoken to by the complainant also. The revision petitioner 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. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed well within time. The complainant has also proved Ext.P8 statement of account to prove the debt. I find that the complainant has well proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner including the compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution. The revision petitioner has no case that he had made payment of the cheuqe amount as demanded in the statutory notice. Thus, I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety for interference in the conviction or in the sentence.
5. The sentence now is practically the minimum possible under the law and it does not require any interference. Direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation was made by the courts below with the object of doing substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action. This direction also does not require any interference.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought some reasonable time to make payment of the compensation in the trial court. In the particular facts and circumstances where the amount is ₹ 2 lakhs, I feel that some reasonable time can be granted to the revision petitioner and subject to this, the revision petition can be dismissed in limine.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for six months to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, the trial court shall take steps to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge