IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1523 OF 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.95/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II) COURT, MANJERI CC.678/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- VATTAPARAMBIL HAMEED,ALANGATTU HOUSE, CHETTIYANGADI, KARUVAMBARAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. P.MUHAMMED KOLATHUMKUNNU HOUSE, PULPETTA P.O. MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA FOR R2 SMT.A.LOWSY FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1523 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-ii), Manjeri in Crl. Appeal No.95 of 2008 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2. His case is that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 4.5.2005 agreeing to repay the same and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 5.10.2005 for repayment of that amount. Dishonour of that cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved Exts.P2 and P3. Exhibit P4 series are produced by respondent No.2 to show service of statutory notice on petitioner. Respondent gave evidence as P.W1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner he had no transaction with respondent No.2, instead, Ext.P1 was given to one Mammunni, his former business partner and respondent No.2 has filed the complaint in collusion with the said Mammunni. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances to prove or probabilise that contention. Respondent No.2 denied that suggestion. Petitioner CRL. R.P. No.1523 of 2009 -: 2 :- did not reply to the statutory notice. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. Though counsel contended that finding of the courts below regarding execution of the cheque is not legal and correct I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding so far as that finding is not shown to be vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 3. Learned Sessions Judge in modification of the sentence awarded by the trail court, directed petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court while retaining the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.1, 50,000/-. Appellate court also directed that in case of default, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation I find no reason to interfere with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the default sentence. 4. Counsel for petitioner requested six months’ time to deposit compensation. Counsel submits that petitioner is in financial difficulty and unable to raise the amount immediately. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that petitioner was successful in dragging the proceeding until now. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant four CRL. R.P. No.1523 of 2009 -: 3 :- months’ time to deposit compensation. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted four months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid the 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 compensation within the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 29.11.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then warrant if any, against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv