Concurrent findings under Section 138 NI Act upheld; no revision interference; fine payment time granted for financial hardship.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in ST No.487/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kollam. The learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced her underSection 138of theNegotiable Instruments Act, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,32,000/- with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for four months. It was further directed that out of the fine amount, if realised, Rs.4,30,000/- shall be paid to the complainant/1st respondent. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam, declined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. However, the sentence was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine Rs.4,32,000/- with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for four months. As ordered by the Trial Court, it was directed that an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to the de facto complainant. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of conviction, and modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision. 2. During the pendency of this revision proceedings, the 1st respondent/de facto complainant passed away. Additional respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 and 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The case relates to the dishonour of a cheque dated

24.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.3 lakh, which the petitioner issued to the 1st respondent towards discharge of a debt she incurred with the 1st respondent. The aforesaid cheque was dishonoured for the reason ‘account closed’. Though the complainant issued statutory notice demanding the payment of cheque amount, the petitioner did not care to make payment as per the said notice. Thus, after complying with the procedural formalities, the complainant instituted ST No.487 of 2012 before the learned Magistrate, alleging the commission of offence underSection 138of theNegotiable Instruments Actby the petitioner herein. The complainant tendered oral evidence as PW1, and brought on record 6 documents as Exts.P1 to P6 before the Trial Court. From the part of the petitioner, 1 witness was examined as DW1. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the complainant has successfully established the commission of offence under of the by the petitioner herein. The Appellate Court made a reappraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate about the evidence pointing to the commission of offence under of the by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that a signed blank cheque was issued only as security, has been dispelled by the courts below. On going through the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that there is absolutely no scope for interference in revision upon the concurrent findings on facts. The Appellate Court has rightly reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The fine amount of Rs.4,32,000/- awarded by the courts below is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Vijayan v. Baby and Another ( 2012(1)SCC 260 ). Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the modified sentence which the Appellate Court has awarded. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is reeling under severe financial crisis, and hence she may be given a period of six months’ time for the remittance of the fine amount imposed by the courts below.

6.