NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. V. SUNDARESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T. 1437 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur. A cheque for 30,000/ - issued by him in discharge of the amount borrowed from the 1st respondent was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The 1st respondent made demand by statutory notice, but the revision petitioner did not pay the amount. Then he filed a complaint before the court below alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. When examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. also, he denied the incriminating circumstances. However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found him guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to pay a fine of 34,000/ -. From out of the total fine amount, 33,000/ - was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr. P.C.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant examined as PW1 during trial has given definite, and consistent evidence proving the debt incurred by the revision petitioner and also proving the execution of Ext. P1 cheque in dispute. This evidence stands not discredited. Exts. P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque in question was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. It has come out in evidence that the complainant had earlier brought a complaint against the revision petitioner as ST. No. 1523 of 2007. In that case, the parties compounded the offence. This fact is proved by Exts. P6 and P7 documents. Of course, this will not prove the present case. Ext. P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, but the revision petitioner did not make reply. He has no explanation why he did not send reply, and he has also no case that he had sufficient funds in his account, or that the cheque issued by him was bounced on some other ground. The complaint was also filed within time by the complainant. The revision petitioner has no material to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, I find, on facts that the complainant has well proved his case with all the necessary elements and ingredients. He has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. I find no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conviction or in the sentence made by the courts below. The sentence in this case is only a fine sentence. With a view to do justice to the complainant, payment of compensation from out of the fine amount is also ordered. The revision petitioner cannot be heard to complain that he is aggrieved by the sentence.