Revision petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the lower appellate court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I Act'). Allegations in the complaint shortly stated is that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant/respondent. In discharge of that liability, he issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on Malappuram District Co-operative Bank dated 2-12-1998. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned by the bank for insufficiency of funds. After sending the statuary notice, the complaint was filed. Trial court examined complainant as PW1 and marked six documents. There was no defence evidence.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent.
3. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court. Complainant was examined as PW1. According to him, in the month of November, 1998, the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him. Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of that liability. In spite of lengthy and strenuous cross examination on PW1, nothing could be brought out to discredit his evidence. The defence case that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner as security for a previous transaction and that to a blank cheque is not established by any evidence. Reckoning the entire evidence in the case, I find that the courts below convicted the revision petitioner on proper appreciation of evidence. There is no illegality or impropriety in the conviction.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have actually settled the matter. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he has no instruction about the submission. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent that the transaction was of the year 1998 and the courts below did not award compensation in this case. It is also submitted that there are binding precedents on the point that unless sufficient reasons are shown, the courts dealing with such matters should award compensation to the complainant. Reckoning the entire facts and circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with following directions :
Conviction of the revision petitioner in S.T No.274/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrates Court, Nilambur is confirmed. The sentence passed by the court below is modified in the following manner :
The revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the trial court and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C within a period of one month from the date of this order, if not paid already. If the accused fails to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months as default sentence. Both the complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial court on 1st December, 2014.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge