Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE22D DAY OF MAY20141ST JYAISHTA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 858 of 2014 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRL.A5082012 of ADDITIONAL DIST. & SESSIONS COURT,MOOVATTUPUZHA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN ST41942008 of J.M.F.C.-I MUVATUPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- SMITHA BIJU W/O. BIJU K.S., AGED35YEARS, KARAKKAPILLIL HOUSE KEEZHILLAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.MANIKANDAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P) LTD. 356, ARCOT ROAD, KADAMBAKKOM60002 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RAJEEV M.B., PIN-600024 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2205-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P No. 858 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd May, 2014 ORDER
Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision. The complainant is represented by its Power of Attorney holder. The case of the complainant is that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner herein for an amount of 77,274/- due in a chitty transaction was bounced due to insufficiency of funds and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount.
2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court and when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, she denied the incriminating circumstances. The Power of Attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked during trial in the trial court.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal filed by Crl.R.P No. 858 of 2014 2 the revision petitioner against the conviction and sentence before the Court of Session, Ernakulam as Crl.A. No.508 of 2012 was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha by judgment dated 30.8.2013 confirming the conviction, however, reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, by way of modification.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I find no scope to admit this revision to files. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the complainant has well proved the case by the evidence of PW1 and also Exts. P1 to P6 documents. The alleged chitty transaction is practically admitted by the revision petitioner, subject to the contention that the amount as shown in the cheque is not exactly due. But the defence pleaded by the revision petitioner regarding the correctness of the amount stands not proved or probabilised. Execution of Ext.P3 cheque by the revision petitioner stands proved by the evidence of PW1 and the liability also stands proved. Ext.P4 document will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. She has no Crl.R.P No. 858 of 2014 3 case that she had sufficient funds in her account to honour the cheque, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. Ext.P5 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, and the complaint was also filed in time. Accordingly, I find that the conviction in this case is only to be confirmed in revision also.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation awarded under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. What is awarded by the trial court, and confirmed in appeal, is only the cheque amount of 77,274/-. I feel that a reasonable period of four months can be granted to the revision petitioner to make payment of the compensation. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files. However, the revision petitioner is granted time for four months from this date to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the Crl.R.P No. 858 of 2014 4 trial court to enforce the sentence and recover the compensation, or enforce the default sentence. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.R.P No. 858 of 2014 5