IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2124 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.430/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KASARAGOD CC.1161/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.RAMESHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN.P., PUTHIYADAVAN HOUSE, R/AT. THIMIRI, THIMIRI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------------------- 1. K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.B.P.KUNHIRAMAN, R/AT KANNANKAL HOUSE, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2124 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg in C.C.No.1161 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from him and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 10.7.2006. That cheque was presented for encashment but it was returned on 12.7.2006 for insufficiency of funds. Dishonour of the cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner. Notice was issued in the residential address as well as the place of business of petitioner. Issue and service of notice on both addresses are proved by Exts.P4 to P8. Finding of the courts below regarding cause of dishonour and service of notice are not challenged before me 3. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and stated about the transaction leading to the execution of cheque. According to the petitioner, he was a dealer in amway products. Respondent No.1 advanced money to him for Crl.R.P.No.2124/2009 2 supply of products. He gave signed blank cheque as security. He supplied the products to respondent No.1 but the latter returned it claiming that it is of low quality. Respondent No.1 asked him to return the money advanced. Respondent No.1 has filled up the cheque for Rs.2,20,000/- and presented the same. 4. Though petitioner has raised a contention how else the cheque happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 that remained a mere suggestion to respondent No.1 which he denied. There is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 had placed orders for supply of products or that petitioner supplied the same to respondent No.1. On the other hand evidence on record is that petitioner borrowed the amount from respondent No.1 and for repayment of that amount issued the cheque. Petitioner did not reply to the notice served on him. Courts below considered the evidence and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,20,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Appellate court modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and converted compensation into fine of Rs.2,20,000/-. Default sentence of imprisonment for three months was also provided. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the amount involved there is little reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, at the instance of the petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.2124/2009 3 6. Learned counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit fine in the trial court. Having regard to the difficulties expressed by the petitioner and the amount involved I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit fine in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks