G. Vinod vs Pramod V. and Another

P. Bhavadasan, J.—The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation u/s 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 45 days. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence as imprisonment till the rising of the court and retained the compensation part of the sentence as awarded by the trial court. According to the complainant, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- from him and in order to discharge the said debt, Ext. P1 cheque was issued. The cheque on presentation bounced for want of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued to the accused invoked no reply, nor was the amount paid. Hence the complaint was lodged.

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial court. On appearance of the accused, particulars of the offence were read out to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and had Exts. P1 to P6 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and claimed that he had no transactions with the complainant. For the purpose of settling certain cases, the accused had paid Rs. 25,000/- and also issued a blank cheque to the father of the complainant and the present complaint has been lodged by misusing that cheque. However, he chose to adduce no evidence. On an appreciation of the materials before it, the trial court came to the conclusion that the offence has been made out and accordingly, the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. In appeal, the sentence was modified.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The accused denied the execution of the cheque and its issuance as alleged by the complainant. Therefore the execution of the cheque is disputed. In such circumstances, the burden is on the complainant to show that the cheque was duly executed by the accused and there was a debt due to him.

The complainant had given evidence as P.W. 1. He had spoken about the issuance of the cheque and its return for want of funds. Even though the accused had a case that he had no transactions with the complainant and that he had not issued any cheque as alleged, the complainant was able to show that the cheque was infact issued by the accused himself. The case of the accused that he had issued a blank cheque for settlement and payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- were not established. There is nothing to show that the claim made by the accused is true. Except for claiming that he had issued a blank cheque for settling a debt and paid Rs. 25,000/-, there was no evidence from his side to establish the said claim. Moreover, as noticed by both the courts below, it is highly improbable to believe that for an ascertained debt of Rs. 25,000/-, a blank cheque would have been issued. In fact the accused had no definite case about the settlement under which the blank cheque came to be issued.

Both the courts below have noticed that the statutory notice issued to the accused did not invoke any response. If as a matter of fact the accused had no transactions with the complainant, or that the blank cheque had been misused by the complainant, he would have immediately responded. But he remained mum and as rightly noticed by the courts below that shows his culpability.

It was the above facts which persuaded the courts below to come to the conclusion that the offence has been made out. The findings are based on the appreciation of the evidence on record and it cannot be said to be either perverse or unwarranted. Therefore, interference under the revisional jurisdiction is uncalled for.

Faced with the above situation, Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the revision petitioner may be given some time to pay the compensation amount awarded by the lower appellate court in order to avoid default sentence. It is also pointed out that in another case the petitioner has to pay compensation amount, and therefore some leniency may be shown with regard to the grant of time for payment. Taking into consideration the various aspects and also the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- is due from the accused to the complainant, it is felt that the request made is just and reasonable. Considering the financial position of the accused, it is felt that some time can be granted.

In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate court, the petitioner is granted six months from today to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-, in default of payment of which, the default sentence imposed by the lower appellate court shall take effect. Warrant, if any, issued against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance for a period of six months from today.

The revision petition is disposed of as above.