IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2135 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.727/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT NO.II, (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.661/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VISWANATHAN, S/O.VELU, IRATTU HOUSE, METHARA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.K.K.ANSAR SRI.T.M.ABHED SMT.T.M.SABALA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAVIL KADAVU, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2135 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II (Adhoc), Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.727 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner owed Rs.30,000/- to him and for discharge of that liability issued cheque (Ext.P1) dated 15.6.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Ext.P2 dated 17.6.2006. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 19.6.12006 intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. Notice was served on petitioner on 20.6.2006. Cause of dishonour as well as issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P2 to P5. Challenge is regarding the finding as to execution of the cheque. 3. Respondent No.1 has given evidence as PW1 and testified to the transaction leading to the execution of cheque. Petitioner claimed that himself and respondent No.1 were engaged in contract business , respondent No.1 Crl.R.P.No.2135/2009 2 invested Rs.25,000/- and at that time he had handed over signed blank cheque as security. That amount was returned to respondent No.1 but the cheque was retained by him and misused. Courts below did not accept that explanation of petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that finding regarding execution of the cheque is not correct. 4. Though petitioner has a contention as to how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1, he did not substantiate that contention. He neither produced any evidence nor brought out circumstances from which the probability of his version could be accepted. He did not even reply to the notice served on him. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1. It is in these circumstances courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation and the default sentence, modified the substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. 6. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four months’ time to deposit the compensation. He stated that petitioner is a labourer Crl.R.P.No.2135/2009 3 and unable to raise the amount immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and considering the amount involved, I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from today to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court and in default of payment, he shall undergo the default sentence as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the 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 compensation within the said period of four months. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 7.11.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks