On a complaint made by the second respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Vadakara on the allegation that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner for Rs.37,945/- in discharge of a debt was bounced due to insufficiency of funds, the revision petitioner faced prosecution in CC.No.88/2013. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined Pw1 during trial and also marked Exts.P1 to P9. In defence, no evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner/accused during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found the revision petitioner/ accused guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. On conviction he was to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.37,945/-.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode with Crl.Appeal No.68 of 2014. In appeal, the learned Special Addl.Sessions Judge, (Marad Cases), Kozhikode confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the revision petitioner is before this court with this revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason to admit this revision to file. The complainant has given satisfactory evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt, and also proving the execution of Ext.P2 cheque. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited. It has come out in evidence that Ext.P2 cheque admittedly bearing the signature of the revision petitioner was handed over by him to the complainant. The plea made by the accused stands not in any manner proved. Exts.P3 and P4 documents would show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has admitted that he had received the statutory notice. He has no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. The complaint was filed by the complainant within time. I find no scope for interference in the conviction on the ground of any irregularity or illegality. The sentence imposed by the trial court is only the minimum possible under the law, and so there is no scope for interference in sentence also.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to remit the payment of fine in the trial court. I feel that some reasonable time can be granted to the revision petitioner as requested by the learned counsel.
5. In the result, this revision is dismissed in limine.
However, the revision petitioner is given time for three months as requested, to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of fine voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of fine, or impose the default sentence. As a condition for getting time for remittance, the revision petitioner is directed to execute a bond with one surety, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for the amount of fine, within one month from this date.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, (Judge)
Kvs/-
-// true copy //-
PA TO JUDGE.