The accused in S.T.No.96/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha is the revision petitioner herein. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent/complainant, against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the revision petitioner was a subscriber to two chitties and in partial discharge of that liability, he had issued Ext.P7 cheque, which when presented, was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient vide Ext.P8 dishonour memo, which was intimated to the complainant by Ext.P9 advice memo. The complainant issued notice demanding payment, which was received by the revision petitioner evidenced by Ext.P10 postal acknowledgment. But the revision petitioner had not paid the amount. So he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Hence the complaint.
3. When the revision petitioner appeared before the court below, particulars of offence were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the complainant, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on their side. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the complainant's evidence. No evidence was adduced on his side in defence.
4. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,43,344/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It is further ordered that, if fine amount is realised, the same be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.9/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha which was made over to the Second Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for disposal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part confirming the order of conviction and sentence of fine and direction to pay the fine as compensation to the complainant, but reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused before the court below.
5. Considering the scope of enquiry and the nature of contentions raised, this Court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent dispensing with notice to the first respondent.
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the conviction and sentence is not proper. The courts below have not properly considered the evidence and he had rebutted the presumption.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the concurrent findings of the court below.
8. On going through the judgments of both the courts and also in the absence of any evidence adduced on the side of the revision petitioner to prove his case, this Court felt that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction entered by the court below as no evidence has been adduced on the side of the revision petitioner to rebut the presumption especially witnesses of the complainant have proved the transaction. Further, the sentence also appears to be reasonable and maximum leniency has been shown by the appellate court in imposing the sentence as well. So this Court feels that there is nothing to interfere with the sentence imposed also. However the counsel for the revision petitioner sought time for payment of the amount and wanted six months time. Considering the amount involved, this Court feels that the time sought for is reasonable. So, the revision petitioner is granted time till 20.6.2015 to pay the amount. Till then execution of the sentence is directed to be kept in abeyance.
With the above observation and direction alone, the revision petition is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge