AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Harilal, J.—This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the N.I. Act'') in Criminal Appeal No. 441/04 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc-II, Thalassery. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 1133/02 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court-I, Kannur. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and he is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The learned counsel urged for a re-appreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The Revision Petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1st respondent had successfully discharged initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the Revision Petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption u/s 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1st respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1st respondent was a legally enforceable debt and Ext. P1 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt. I do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-appreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.
The counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that challenge under this Revision is confined to sentence only. The sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner is disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. He further submits that the Revision Petitioner is willing to pay the compensation as ordered by the court below; but he is unable to raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds. But he is ready to pay the compensation within three months.
The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the transaction between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was of the year 1999 and the cheque was issued in 1999 itself. So, a reasonable modification alone can be made in the sentence.
Having regard to the above submission, the revision petitioner is given three months time to pay the compensation.
Similarly, the substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is too harsh and excessive. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment also. If the revision petitioner is incarcerated for a period as ordered by the courts below, the entire family will put in great hardship.
The Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore Khore, held that the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Further, in R. Vijayan Vs. Baby and Another, Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, in the light of the decisions quoted above and submission made at the Bar, expressing willingness to pay the compensation within three months, I am inclined to grant three months time to pay the compensation. Similarly, the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year will stand reduced and modified to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court. Consequently, this Revision Petition is liable to be disposed of subject to the following terms.
i. The Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court.
ii. The Revision Petitioner shall pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) to the complainant/1st respondent under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr. P.C. within a period of three months from today.
iii. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court to suffer substantive sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered above on or before 10/1/2014 with sufficient proof to show payment of compensation.
iv. In default, the Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
v. If the revision petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment in execution of the sentence ordered under the impugned judgment, he shall be released forthwith.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.