IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2355 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.42/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.123/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III(MOBILE), KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.P.MUKUNDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PAYYANUR (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. V.V.HARIDASAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, (P.O)KUNHIMANGALAM, PAYYANUR(VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2355 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Court, Talassery in criminal appeal No.42 of 2003 confirming conviction of petitioner but modifying the sentence for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.50000/- from him on 01-03-2009 undertaking to repay the same within three months and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 05-01-2001. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as seen from Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to his case. According to the petitioner he had borrowed Rs.20000/- from DW1 to whom Ext.P1 in signed blank form was given. He discharged the liability to DW1 but the cheque was not returned. DW1 denied that he had any transaction with the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that due execution of the cheque is not Crl.R.P..No.2355 of 2009 2 proved. 3. There is evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. DW1 did not support petitioner in his case. Thus, there is no evidence or circumstance to show that Ext.P1 in signed blank form was given to DW1. Petitioner did not also reply to the notice served on him. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner under section 138 of the Act. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was directed to pay Rs.75000/- as compensation to respondent No.1. Default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months was also provided. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation and default sentence were confirmed. Having regard to the nature of the offence and object of legislation I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or the direction regarding payment of compensation and the default sentence. 5. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation. He stated that petitioner, on account of financial difficulty is unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned Crl.R.P..No.2355 of 2009 3 counsel and the amount involved I am inclined to grant time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the appellate court. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30-12-2009 to deposit compensation in the trial cout. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the period aforesaid. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31-12-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 31-12-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/