A cheque for ₹1,00,000/- issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the complainant, in discharge of the amount borrowed by him, was dishonoured due to in sufficiency of funds. On the allegation that the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount inspite of statutory notice, the 1st respondent herein preferred a complaint against the revision petitioner before the Judicial First Class magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha.
2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court when the particulars of offence under Section 138 of N.I Act were read over and explained to him by the learned Magistrate, and he claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. One witness was examined on the defence side as DW1. On an appreciation of evidence, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of N.I Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the Court of Session, Alappuzha with Crl.A No.650/2010. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, and the direction to pay compensation was maintained. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. Notice on admission was given to the 1st respondent in this proceedings. But he remained absent. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, I do not find any reason or ground to admit this revision to files.
5. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the alleged borrowal, and also proving execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the revision petitioner. In fact the revision petitioner has practically admitted the cheque in question, including his signature, and he has no satisfactory explanation how the cheque came in the hands of the complainant, if not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant has discharged his initial burden, and the presumption available to him under Section 139 of the N.I Act stands not rebutted. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that Ext.P1 cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case otherwise that he had sufficient funds in his account, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. Thus I find that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of the amount borrowed from the complainant, and it was bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
6. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was filed well within time. The revision petitioner has no explanation why he did not send reply to the statutory notice, and he has no case that he had paid the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. Thus compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution also stands proved. I do not find any illegality or irregularity for interference in revision. This revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant four months time to make payment of the compensation in the trial court. Inspite of notice the complainant did not turn up to contest the revision. In the particular facts and circumstances, including the amount due as compensation, I feel that time as sought can be granted to the revision petitioner.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted in files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for four 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 impose the default sentence.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ab //True Copy// P.A to Judge