The revision petitioner herein challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C No.582 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. He is a Bank employee. Prosecution was initiated by the 2nd respondent herein. The case of the 2nd respondent is that a cheque for ₹ 99,500/- issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of some amount borrowed by him was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained by the learned Magistrate, and he claimed to be tried. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and also marked Exts.P1 to P6. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and maintained a defence that he had no transaction with the complainant. No evidence in defence was adduced by the revision petitioner, though opportunity was granted by the trial court.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and was also directed to make payment of a compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Palakkad with Crl.A No.67 of 2013. In appeal, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of court, and the direction to pay compensation was altered to a fine sentence of ₹ 1,01,000/-.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or scope to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence regarding the borrowal of amount by the revision petitioner and also regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. This evidence given by the complainant stands not discredited, and the presumption thus available to him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands not in any manner rebutted. Accused did not adduce any evidence in defence to probabilise the defence pleaded by him. I find that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Ext.P2 document will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case or explanation otherwise that it was bounced on some other ground. Ext.P6 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, and the complaint was also filed in time. Thus, it is found that there is compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating the prosecution. In the above circumstances, the conviction in this case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is only to be confirmed in revision.
6. Though a jail sentence of imprisonment of three months was initially imposed by the trial court, the appellate court reduced the jail sentence to the minimum possible under the law, and the direction to pay compensation was altered to fine sentence. I find no reason to interfere in the modification made in sentence by the appellate court. With a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action, the appellate court has directed payment of ₹ 99,500/- to the complainant from out of the fine amount. No interference is required in the said direction.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that a reasonable period of six months can be granted to the revision petitioner. Subject to this, the revision is liable to 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 six months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence including fine sentence.
Sd/ P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge