IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2025 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.28/2006 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.459/2002 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON, S/O. ANTONY, MAROKKI HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDEEP KUMAR, S/O. VENUGOPALAN, THALAPPILLY HOUSE, CHIRALAYAM DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2025 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal 28 of 2006 confirming conviction of petitioner but modifying sentence for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1. He alleged that petitioner borrowed Rs.45,000/- from him and on his demanding payment issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20.3.2002. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated to his case. Petitioner contended that he had no transaction with respondent No.1 and instead, had joined a Kuri conducted by M/s.Cosmos Corporation of which respondent No.1 is a partner. When he prized the Kuri two signed blank cheques were given as security. Petitioner and his wife gave evidence as D.Ws.1 and 2. Petitioner proved Exts.D1 to D5. Trial court observed that Exts.D1 to D5 have nothing to with the transaction pleaded by respondent No.1 leading to Ext.P1. Accordingly relying on the CRL. R.P. No.2025 of 2009 -: 2 :- evidence of R.W.1 petitioner was found guilty. 3. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 is a cheque drawn on the account maintained by petitioner. According to him he had handed over two blank signed cheques to M/s.Cosmos Corporation. Respondent No.1 denied that suggestion and claimed that in connection with the borrowal of Rs.45,000/- from him that petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque in his favour. Courts below have observed that Exts.D1 to D5 are in no way related to the transaction which culminated in Ext.P1. Petitioner did not also reply to the statutory notice served on him. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 regarding due execution of the cheque. Finding of the courts below regarding due execution of the cheque is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference in revision. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/-. Default sentence of one month was also provided. In appeal substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation and default sentence were confirmed. There is no CRL. R.P. No.2025 of 2009 -: 3 :- reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court or direction regarding compensation and default sentence. 5. Learned counsel requested six months' time to deposit the compensation in the trial court. He stated that petitioner is in poor financial condition and is unable to raise the money immediately. 6. Cheque is of the year 2002. No payment is made till now. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant three months' time to the petitioner to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from this day to deposit the compensation in the trail court as ordered by the appellate court and in case of default he has to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the courts below. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 29.9.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv