The revision petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.950 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. 2. Prosecution was initiated in the trial court by the first respondent herein. His case is that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner for an amount of `60,000/- in discharge of the amount borrowed by him from the complainant was dishonoured due to 'insufficiency of funds', and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner failed to make the payment of the cheque amount.
3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court and claimed to be tried. During trial the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No evidence was adduced in defence by the revision petitioner during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence the learned Magistrate found him guilty under Section 138 of NI Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and was also directed to pay a compensation of `60,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner approached the court of Sessions, Kollam with Crl.Appeal No.63 of 2012. In appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Court II, Kollam confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing the jail sentenced to imprisonment till raising of the court.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusal of the case records, I find no scope or reason to admit this revision to file. The complainant examined as P.W.1 has given consistent evidence proving the alleged transaction of borrower and also the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque by the revision petitioner. It has come out in evidence that Ext.P1 cheque, admittedly bearing the signature of the revision petitioner, was in fact handed over by him to the complainant. In such a situation no further evidence is required to prove execution. The Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque was dishonored 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. I find that Ext.P1 cheque was executed and issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally recoverable debt of ` 60,000/-, and that it was bounced due to insufficiency of funds in his account.
6. Ext.P5 notice was sent by the complainant well within time, and the complaint was filed in time. The revision petitioner has no explanation why he did not send reply to the statutory notice. He has also no case that has made payment of the amount as required in the statutory notice. I find that the complainant had well complied with the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution in this case.
7. I find no scope for interference in sentence also because the substantive sentence now stands reduced to the minimum possible under law by the appellate court. Direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation was made by the courts below with the object of doing substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to make payment of the compensation. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that time for three months can be granted to the revision petitioner, and subject to this, the revision can 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 three months time 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 recover the amount of compensation, or impose defaulted sentence.
AMV/23/5/ P.UBAID, JUDGE