T.M. Sabu vs P.V. Sadanandan

P. Ubaid, J.—A sentence of fine u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is under challenge in this revision, brought by the accused in S.T. No. 2675 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. A cheque for 50,000/- issued by the revision petitioner herein in discharge of a debt due to the 1st respondent herein was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment as demanded, the 1st respondent brought complaint in the court below. The revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in defence though he maintained a defence of denial during trial.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found him guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and was also directed to pay the cheque amount of 50,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl. A. No. 123 of 2009. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vatakara confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was altered to a fine sentence of 56,000/-. Direction to pay compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. was accordingly reversed. However, another direction was made to pay 55,000/- out of the fine amount as compensation u/s 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused is not satisfied. He challenges even the legality of the fine sentence.

On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of 50,000/- and also proving the execution of Ext. P1 cheque. It stands proved by Ext. P2 memo that Ext. P1 Crl.R.P. No. 1142 of 2014 cheque issued by the revision petitioner was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. He 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 explanation why he did not send reply to Ext. P3 statutory notice caused by the complainant. Admittedly, no payment was made by him, as demanded in the statutory notice. The evidence on facts given by the complainant stands not in any manner discredited, and he has also the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act to support him. The accused did not furnish any material to probabilise the defence case. Thus, 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. The statutory notice was sent in time, and the complaint was also filed in time. I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some time for making payment of the fine amount in the trial court. What he requires is a reasonable period of two months. The 1st respondent was given notice on admission, but he remained absent. In such a situation, it would not be inappropriate to grant the request made by 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 two months from this date to remit the amount of fine in the trial court, voluntarily, on failure of which, the trial court shall take steps to recover the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.