Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision brought by the accused in the trial court. On the allegation that a cheque for ₹ 57,000/- issued by the revision petition in favour of the 1st respondent was bounced due to insufficiency of funds and he failed to make payment in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha in S.T No.461 of 2008. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court, and claimed to be tried. PW1 was examined on the side of the complainant, and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but he did not adduce any evidence in defence. 2. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment one month, and he was also directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 57,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A No.679 of 2012. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. However, the direction to pay compensation with default sentence thereon was maintained. In view of the mistake committed by the appellate court as regards the nature of payment, it is hereby clarified that the amount payable under the impugned order of the trial court is compensation, and not fine.
4. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. Granting some reasonable time to make payment of compensation as requested by the learned counsel, this revision can be dismissed.
5. PW1 examined on the side of the complainant has given definite evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt and also proving the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. The case on facts as regards the transaction is further proved by Ext.P2 Hypothecation agreement and the Ext.P9 Ledger extract. Exts.P4 and P5 documents will show that Ext.P3 cheque was bounced 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 to honour the cheque. Ext.P6 statutory notice was caused by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed in time. The revision petitioner has no explanation why he did not send reply to the notice, and he has also no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the statutory notice. The evidence given by PW1 on facts, proving the transaction, the liability, and execution of the cheque stands not discredited. The presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I Act stands not rebutted by any material. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts and he has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.
6. As regards the sentence also, there is no scope for interference because the sentence imposed by the trial court is the minimum possible under the law and further reduction or modification is not possible. Direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation was made by the courts below with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action for realisation of the amount due under the Hypothecation agreement executed by the revision petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant time for three months to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation in the trial court. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that it would be just and reasonable to grant some time as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for three months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge