A cheque for ₹84,503/- issued by the revision petitioners jointly in favour of the 1st respondent herein was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The 1st respondent is a finance company, represented by its power of attorney holder, and the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioners in discharge of the amount due in a chitty transaction. When the revision petitioners failed to make payment of the cheque amount inspite of statutory notice, the 1st respondent preferred complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Thodupuzha. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate as S.T.No.34/2012, after necessary enquiry.
2. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty in the trial court when the learned Magistrate read over the particulars of offence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C also they denied the incriminating circumstances. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant, and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. No evidence in defence was adduced by the revision petitioners.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant the trial court found the revision petitioners guilty under Section 138 of the N.I Act. On conviction thereunder, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months each, and to pay a fine of ₹42,300/- each.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners approached the Court of Session, Thodupuzha with Crl.A.No.40/2013. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha confirmed the conviction. However, the sentence was modified by reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The fine sentence, with direction to pay it as compensation, was maintained in appeal. Now, the accused in the trial court, are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit the revision to files. The two witnesses examined on the side of the complainant have given satisfactory evidence proving the transaction in which the amount was due from the revision petitioners, and also proving the issuance of Ext.P8 cheque. In fact the revision petitioners actually do not have any definite defence or legally acceptable evidence. They would practically admit the signature in the cheque in question, and also in Ext.P3 promissory note. The transaction in which the amount fell due from the revision petitioners stands further proved by documents like Ext.P4 ledger extract, Ext.P5 debt acknowledgment card, and also Ext.P6 guarantee agreement. I find that Ext.P8 cheque was issued by the revision petitioners in discharge of a legally enforceable debt incurred by them in a chitty transaction with the complainant. Ext.P9 document will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The fact of dishonour due to insufficiency of funds also stands proved by the witnesses examined by the complainant. The revision petitioners have no case that the cheque issued by them was bounced on some other ground, or that they had sufficient funds in their account to honour the cheque. Ext.P6 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed well within time. The revision petitioners have no case that they had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the statutory notice, and they have no explanation why reply was not sent to the statutory notice. I find that the complainant has well proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, and the complainant has also well proved compliance of the statutory requirements. I find no illegality or irregularity in the conviction and sentence. The sentence imposed by the appellate court is the minimum possible under the law. The direction to pay the fine amount as compensation does not require any interference when the amount is admittedly due from the revision petitioners. The complainant has not so far initiated civil action with the hope that the amount due could be recovered by way of compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners made a request to grant six months time to make payment of the fine amount in the trial court. This request is not seriously opposed by the other side. I also feel that a reasonable time can be given to the revision petitioners to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioners are granted time for six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken to recover the amount of fine by coercive steps, or enforce the default sentence. As regards the other sentence, the revision petitioners will surrender before the trial court within one month from this date to serve out the sentence, and as a condition for granting six months time to make payment of the fine amount, they will execute a bond with one surety for ₹45,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court, within the said period of one month.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab