Raju vs K.M. Wilson

P. Ubaid, J.—On an indictment u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni, that a cheque for 1,74,000/- issued by the revision petitioner was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and he failed to make payment in spite of notice, the revision petitioner faced prosecution, and he claimed to be tried when the particulars of the offence were read over and explained by the learned Magistrate.

The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6 during trial. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., but, he did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and was also directed to pay a compensation of 1,74,000/- to the complainant u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta as Crl. A. No. 146 of 2012. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of 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.

Notice on admission was given to the 1st respondent, who preferred the complaint, in this case. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files on the ground of any irregularity or illegality. The complainant has given consistent evidence proving the transaction in which the debt was incurred by the revision petitioner and also proving the execution of Ext. P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. This evidence, on facts, stands not in any manner discredited. Ext. P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed well within time. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. He has also no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. Thus, I find that the complainant has well proved his case on facts including compliance of the statutory requirements u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Necessary elements and ingredients of the offence alleged stand well proved. I find no illegality or irregularity in the conviction made by the courts below.

Of course, the trial court had imposed sentence for three months, but it stands reduced in appeal to the minimum possible under the law. Direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation was made by the court with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant, who has not so far initiated civil action with the hope that he will get the amount due in the criminal proceeding. In such a situation, the direction to pay compensation also does not require any interference in revision.

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. Though he sought time for eight months'', I feel that a reasonable time for six months can be granted in the interests of justice, and subject to this, the revision can be dismissed.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for six 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.