A sentence of fine under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is under challenge in this revision. The revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the 1st respondent herein on 2.9.2009. In discharge of the said amount, the revision petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, but it happened to be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the amount, in spite of notice, she filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty in the trial court. The complainant examined herself as PW1and marked Exts.P1 to P5. No evidence was adduced in defence by the revision petitioner. The trial court found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 1,02,625/-.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram with Crl.A No.70 of 2013. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Now the accused challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence before this Court in 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 definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction of borrowal made 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. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the amount on getting statutory notice caused by the complainant well within time, on dishonour of the cheque, the complainant brought complaint before the trial court in time. Execution of Ext.P1 cheque stands well proved by the evidence of the complainant. Ext.P3 memo will show that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. 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. Thus, I find that the complainant has proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with all the necessary elements and ingredients, including compliance of the statutory requirements for initiating prosecution. I find no reason for interference in the conviction or in the sentence on the ground of any irregularity or any illegality. Fortunately for the revision petitioner, the trial court or the appellate court has not imposed any jail sentence. The sentence is only a fine sentence of just ₹ 2,625/- in addition to the cheque amount. This is quite reasonable.
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 cheque amount. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the amount involved, I feel that some reasonable time can be granted, and 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 time for four months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make remittance of the fine amount voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence. The sentence being one of fine, the revision petitioner is directed, as a condition for getting time, to execute a bond with one surety for the amount of fine, before the trial court, within one month.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge