The court upheld the enforcement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stressing the importance of ensuring compliance with statutory obligations before dismissing appeals.

ORDER

The Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T.

No.106/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate court -II, Idukki as well as appellant in Crl.A.No.129/2011 on the files of Additional Sessions Judge Thodupuzha. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act') on a complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The allegation against the Revision Petitioner is that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, he issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) drawn in favour of the first respondent. When the cheque was presented for encashment the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Though the first respondent had issued a statutory notice claiming cheque amount, the Revision Petitioner has neither sent a reply, nor repaid amount. Hence Revision petitioner is committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

2. After trial the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and also directed to pay compensation Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation. In default the Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Though Revision Petitioner had preferred an appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment was modified to imprisonment for one day till rising of the court. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

3. Though this Revision is filed on various grounds none of the grounds are sufficient to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. The Revision Petitioner could not point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence, on which the conviction is based. There is no illegality or impropriety in the Judgment under challenge. Therefore conviction is confirmed and this revision is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that he is willing to pay the compensation as ordered by the appellate court within a period of one month. He seeks some time only in this Revision petition. Having regard to the above submission I am inclined to grant one month's time to pay the compensation. Consequently this revision is liable to be disposed of subject to the following terms.

1.Revision Petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the first respondent as compensation within a period of one month from today.

2.The Revision Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court as ordered by the appellate court.

3.The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court on or before 06/04/2013 to suffer the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered above with sufficient proof to show the payment of compensation.

4.In defult, the Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.