IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2559 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.219/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM ST.1225/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- THOMAS CHACKO, KUZHAMANACKAL VEEDU, KOTTOOR P.O., KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED KUNJU, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KUTTAPPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON 07/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2559 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of August 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.2 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.1. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding execution of a cheque is attempted to be unsettled in this revision at the instance of accused. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Kottayam in S.T.No.1225 of 2005 on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2. According to the latter, petitioner borrowed Rs.150000/- from him and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 20-06-2005 for its repayment. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2, P3 and P7. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1. According to the petitioner he had no transaction with respondent No.2 and instead, his brother had handed over the signed blank cheque to respondent No.2. That contention was not upheld by the courts below. It is contended that due execution of cheque is not proved. 3. That Ext.P1 is a cheque signed and drawn on the account maintained by petitioner is admitted and proved. His contention that Crl.R.P.No.2559 of 2009 2 brother had handed over the cheque to respondent No.2 is not proved or probabilised. There is no evidence or circumstance to hold so. Petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. In the circumstances conviction of petitioner does not require interference. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. There is also a direction to pay Rs.150000/- by way of compensation to respondent No.2. Default sentence imposed is imprisonment for two months. It is contended that sentence awarded is excessive. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months' time to deposit compensation. 5. Having regard to the nature of offence and I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation at the instance of petitioner. Since substantive sentence is being modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and considering the amount involved it is directed that in case of non payment of compensation petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Considering the difficulties of petitioner stated by learned counsel, petitioner is granted time till 08-01-2010 to deposit compensation. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: 1. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as Crl.R.P.No.2559 of 2009 3 simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 2. Petitioner is granted time till 08-01-2010 to deposit compensation. In case of failure petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 3. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid compensation to respondent No.2 through his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through his counsel acknowledging receipt of the amount within the period aforesaid. 4. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 11-01-2010 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 11-01-2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/