On dishonour of a cheque for ₹1,50,000/- issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the first respondent/complainant in discharge of a liability, the 1st respondent brought complaint against the revision petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kasaragod, when the revision petitioner failed to make payment on demand. He entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 during trial. No evidence was adduced in defence by the accused though he denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he maintained a defence that the cheque leaf handed over by him to somebody else was somehow procured by the complainant to bring a false complaint.
2. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found him guilty under Section 138 of N.I Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, and was also directed to pay compensation of ₹1,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused approached the Court of Session, Kasaragod with Crl.A. No.90/2012. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now he is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
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 the revision to files. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of ₹1,50,000/-, and also proving execution of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. The accused does not have any acceptable defence. His defence is that the cheque handed over to somebody else was somehow procured by the complainant. It is not known who this somebody is, how could the complainant procure the cheque, or why the complainant should bring a false complaint against him, or why the other person could not have filed a complaint against him. I find that it is not a defence at all. The evidence given by the complainant stands not in any manner discredited, and the presumption thus available to him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands not in any manner rebutted. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case otherwise that it was bounced on some other ground, or that he had sufficient funds in his account. He has no explanation why he did not send reply to Ext.P4 statutory notice. The complaint was also filed well within time by the complainant. Thus, I find that the complainant has well proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act with all the necessary elements and ingredients, and he has also proved compliance of all statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. Thus, I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.
5. As regards sentence also there is no scope for interference because the sentence imposed by the court below is the minimum possible under the law. With a view to do substantial justice to the complainant a direction was also made to make payment of the cheque amount as compensation. This also does not require interference, because the complainant has admittedly not initiated civil action so far, for realisation of the amount, and the revision petitioner has not made payment of any amount so far.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to make payment of compensation in the trial court. In the particular facts and circumstances including the amount due, I feel that some reasonable time as requested by the learned counsel can be granted. Such a course will not cause any hardship to the otherside.
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 to make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and to recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge