T.K. JAYA CHANDRAN Vs. P. DAMODHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A cheque for 95,000/ - issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent herein in discharge of a debt incurred by him in a transaction of borrowal, was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. When he failed to make payment on demand, the 1st respondent initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur in S.T No.1617 of 2003. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the accusations before the learned Magistrate, and the case proceeded for trial. The complainant (1st respondent herein) examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents. The revision petitioner maintained a defence during trial that he had borrowed only 10,000/ - in 1997, that he has discharged the whole debt and that the complainant has filed a false complaint by misusing a cheque handed over by him as security. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence to substantiate his case. Believing the evidence given by the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and was also directed to pay a compensation of 95,000/ - to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Thalassery with Crl.A No.209 of 2007. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -II) confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request for some modification in sentence. There is reason to believe that the concern of the complainant is to get the amount due and not to send the accused to jail. I find that the direction to pay the cheque amount as compensation will do substantial justice to the complainant. I feel that the minimum sentence possible under the law will be the adequate sentence. To that effect, modification can be made in sentence. Such a modification will not cause prejudice to the other side. The learned counsel also made a request to grant some reasonable time to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation. As requested by the learned counsel, time for six months' can be granted in the present circumstances when the amount involved is nearly 1 lakh. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as follows, without being admitted to files.