IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2454 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.519/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.763/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- TENCY KUMAR P.R. S/O.RAMANKUTTY, PULIKKAL VEEDU THIRINELLOOR PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.AJAYA KUMAR S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KAITHARAM, SANATHANAPURAM PO, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P.No.2454 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 O R D E R Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque and the conviction and sentence based on that are under challenge in this revision. I have dispensed with notice to respondent No.1 in view of the order, I propose to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Alappuzha in C.C. No.763 of 2007 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.4,55,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and fifty five thousand only) and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 6.6.2007. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Crl. R.P.No.2454 of 2009 2 Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to the transaction leading to the execution of Ext.P1. Petitioner, it appears had no specific defence when questioned under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has not explained how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 is signed by petitioner and drawn on the account of maintained by him. It is seen that nothing was brought out by the petitioner to disbelieve evidence of respondent No.1 regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. Petitioner did not also reply to the statutory notice served on him. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the courts below as to the due execution of the cheque for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Conviction therefore does Crl. R.P.No.2454 of 2009 3 not require interference. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. There was also a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Appellate court confirmed the sentence and direction for payment of compensation but modified the default sentence as simple imprisonment for two months. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation, I do not find reason to interfere with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence as confirmed/modified by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months time to deposit compensation. According to learned counsel, on account of financial difficulties petitioner is not able to raise the entire amount Crl. R.P.No.2454 of 2009 4 immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel, petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation as ordered by the courts below. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid the amount to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation, within the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then, execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. app/-