The presumption of validity in cheque cases under the N.I. Act stands firm unless the accused provides compelling evidence to rebut it.

ORDER

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023 This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for convenience), challenging judgments in STC No.147 of 2016 dated 10.01.2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, and also in Crl.A.No.4 of 2019 dated 20.01.2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused in the above case.

Respondents herein are the original complainant as well as State of Kerala.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State/first respondent and perused the materials.

4. I would like to refer the parties in this revision petition as ‘complainant’ and ‘accused’ for convenience.

5. The brief facts of the case put up by the complainant before the trial court are as under :

The accused purchased materials worth Rs.1,85,400/- from the shop of the complainant on credit and in discharge of the liability, he had issued a cheque for Rs.1,85,400/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kalpetta Branch dated 22.12.2015. Though the complainant presented the cheque for collection, the same got dishonoured for want of funds. Further case of the complainant was that despite having issued notice of demand, the said amount was not paid. On this premise, complainant lodged a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I.Act’ hereinafter). 6. The trial court secured presence of the accused and the complainant for trial and tried the matter. During trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On completion of prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to him, to adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced.

7. On appreciation of available evidence, after hearing both sides, the trial court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced as under :

“In the result, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,78,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Eight Thousand only). In case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Fine amount if realised Rs.1,76,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. balance amount shall be remitted to the Government.”

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, revision petitioner filed appeal before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad, and on re-appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal as under :

“In the result, 1. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

2. Finding of conviction by the trial court is upheld.

3. Sentence imposed on the appellant/accused is modified to the effect that the appellant/accused shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and he shall pay a fine of Rs.1,78,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand only).

4. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

5. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.”

9. Now the revision petitioner/accused assails concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. While arguing this revision, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner will be satisfied grant of six months' time to pay the fine amount, as nothing to be argued to unsettle the concurrent verdicts.

10. On perusal of the judgments of the courts below, it is discernible that t