IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1498 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.42/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)-I, MANJERI ST.292/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------- PARAKKATHODI KAREEM, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, THACHINGANADAM P.O., PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.ABOOBECKER, THACHIYODEN HOUSE, ODAMPATTA, CHEMPRASSERI P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== CRL. R.P. NO.1498 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 6th day of May, 2010 O R D E R In the way I propose to dispose of this revision petition, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with since it is not prejudicial to him. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Manjeri confirming conviction of petitioner but modifying the substantive sentence and directing payment of compensation for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him by way of cash and Rs.50,000/- by cheque. For the discharge of that liability petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 29.11.2006. Its dishonour for insufficiency of funds is proved by Ext.P2. Issue and service of statutory notice on petitioner are proved by Exts.P3 and P4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner he had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1, at that time two signed blank cheques were given as security and one of which was misused. Respondent No.1 when examined as P.W.1 denied that suggestion. Apart from the suggestion CRL. R.P.No.1498 of 2010 -: 2 :- made by petitioner, there is no material on record to prove or probabilise his case that he had borrowed only Rs.50,000/- and had given signed blank cheques. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner has not replied to the notice. It is on this evidence that courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque and that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of the Act. On going through the judgments under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with conviction of petitioner. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months but refused to award compensation stating that the issue of awarding compensation arises only when loss is caused to respondent No.1, no such loss is caused as respondent No.1 could have filed a civil suit for realisation of the amount. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has refused to follow binding decisions of this Court on the point. However, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed petitioner to pay Rs.300/- as costs and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one day under Section 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellate court modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and obviously following the decisions of this Court directed petitioner to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 CRL. R.P.No.1498 of 2010 -: 3 :- and provided a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. Direction for payment of costs was confirmed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount involved I do not find reason to interfere with sentence as awarded by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation, costs and default sentences. 4. Learned counsel requested four months' time to deposit the compensation and costs. He states that on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to make the entire payment immediately. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved I am inclined to grant petitioner three months' time from this day to deposit/pay the amount. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months' time from this day to deposit the compensation and costs in the trial court as ordered by the appellate and trial courts. In case of default, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment as ordered by the appellate and trial courts. It is made clear that it shall 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 a statement in the trial court through his counsel CRL. R.P.No.1498 of 2010 -: 4 :- acknowledging receipt of the amount within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10.08.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv