A cheque for Rs. 80,000/- issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the first respondent herein was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount in spite of statutory notice, the first respondent filed complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha alleging the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trail court and pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6 during trial. In defence the revision petitioner examined one witnesses as DW1, to probabilise his case that the cheque in question was in fact handed over as security in a transaction of borrowal made by the husband of the accused. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. On conviction thereunder she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the court of Session Alappuzha with Crl. A 413/2010. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha 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 was maintained. Now the accused is before this court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
3. Both sides were heard on admission. On hearing the learned Counsel and on a perusal of the case records I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant examined as PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction of borrowal made by the revision petitioner, and also proving the execution of the Ext. P1 cheque. She also stated in evidence that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. This evidence on facts given by the complainant stands not described. The accused pleaded a defence that the cheque in question was in fact handed over as security in another transaction. But such a case stands not satisfactorily proved or probabilised. Even a cheque handed over as security to ensure payment of a debt, can well be enforced under the law, and dishonour of such a cheque will definitely attract prosecution under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The Ext. P3 memo will show that the Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case that she had funds in her account to honour the cheque, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. The Ext. P4 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, and the complaint was also filed in time. Thus I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, and she was also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. The revision petitioner has no explanation why she did not send reply to the notice, and she has also no case that she had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety for interference in the conviction made by the courts below.
4. As regards sentence also there is no scope for interference in revision because what is imposed by the court below is the minimum possible under the law, and a direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation was made with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant. The cheque in question was issued in 2007. Now we are in 2014. Admittedly the revision petitioner has not paid anything to the complainant in discharge of the debt. In the above circumstances, I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed inlimine.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation in the trial court. Request for six months time was objected by the other side. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that time for four months can be granted to make payment of the compensation directly or through court.
In the result this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However the revision petitioner 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 recover the amount of compensation, or enforce default sentence. In case payment is made directly, the revision petitioner shall obtain a proper receipt and produce it in the trial court with notice to the other side.
sab True Copy PA TO JUDGE P.UBAID, JUDGE