Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision. The revision petitioner faced prosecution before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur under Section 138 of N.I Act, in S.T.No.2504/2009 brought by the 1st respondent herein on the allegation that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner for ₹1,50,000/- in discharge of a debt incurred by her was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and inspite of statutory notice she failed to make payment of the cheque amount.
2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. During trial the complainant examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. No evidence was adduced in defence by the revision petitioner to prove or probabilise her case that the cheque in question was in fact handed over by her as security in a transaction of borrowal made by her husband.
3. On an appreciation of evidence the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of N.I Act. On conviction thereunder she was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1,62,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused approached the Court of Session, Palakkad with Crl.A No.373/2011. In appeal the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad concurred with the findings of the trial court including the sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 7.6.2013. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. Notice on admission was given to the 1st respondent in this proceedings. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find no irregularity or illegality for interference in revision, and I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite evidence proving the alleged transaction of borrowal, and also the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. This evidence stands not discredited, and the presumption available to the complainant stands not rebutted in any manner.
Admittedly the cheque was handed over to ensure payment of debt, and so the cheque is well enforceable under the law. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque in question was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case that she had sufficient funds to honour the cheque. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed well within time. Thus compliance of statutory formalities also stands proved. I find that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and that it was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Failure to make payment as required in the statutory notice stands proved. Thus I find that the conviction is quite legal and proper, and there is no ground for interference.
6. As regards the sentence imposed, I find that there is absolutely no scope for interference, because it is only a fine sentence, and the amount of fine imposed includes the cheque amount. The trial court has ordered payment of ₹1,60,000/- as compensation out of the total amount of fine.
Such a direction was made with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action. Thus the fine sentence does not require any interference.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time for eight months to make payment of the fine amount in the trial court. Of course that much time cannot be granted. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that the revision petitioner can be granted time for six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for six months from this date to remit the amount of fine voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and to recover the amount of fine, or impose the default sentence. As a condition for granting time for payment the revision petitioner is directed to execute a bond in the trial court with two sureties for ₹50,000/- each within one month from this date.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ab