IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1008 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.213/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CC.671/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- R.K.BEENA, D/O. KAMALAKSHI, AGED 43 YRS, BEENA BHAVANAM, PERINGALA, (NOW WORKING AS UD CLERK, SUB REGISTERED OFFICE, VELLANAD, NEDUMANGAD.) BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RETNAMA, W/O. SANTHAPPAN, SANTHA NILAYAM, EROOR SOUTH, KEERIKKAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1008 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.213 of 2003 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.2, petitioner borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from her and for repayment of that amount issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 13.3.2000. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2, P3, P7 and P8. Service of statutory notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to her case. According to the petitioner, her deceased husband had forged her signature in the cheque and misused it. Learned magistrate observed that petitioner was making out a case from the death of her husband. It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not proved. 3. Though it is contended by petitioner that her signature was forged by her deceased husband, there is no reason or circumstance to think so, not to say about any evidence in that line. It is not disputed that the cheque was drawn Crl.R.P.No.1008/2007 2 on the account maintained by the petitioner. In such a situation it was for the petitioner to take necessary steps to prove the forgery she pleaded. That has not been done. She has not replied to the statutory notice served on her. On the other hand respondent No.2 has given evidence as PW1 which the courts below accepted. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve that evidence. On hearing the counsel and considering the evidence on record I do not find reason to discard the evidence of respondent No.2. There is also no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding execution of the cheque as it does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. There is a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to respondent No.2. No default sentence is imposed. Appellate court has confirmed the sentence. It is contended by learned counsel that sentence imposed is excessive. Having regard to the nature of offence and object of legislation I am of the view that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. There is however no reason to interfere with the direction for payment of compensation. Courts are invested with the power to award imprisonment for non-compliance with the direction for payment of compensation. Considering the facts and Crl.R.P.No.1008/2007 3 circumstances, amount involved and since substantive sentence is being modified, petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in case of non-payment of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to deposit compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is an old lady and that this is a transaction of the year 2000 and still the amount is remaining unpaid. Having regard to the circumstances stated by both sides I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 30.11.2009 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. ii. Petitioner is granted time till 30.11.2009 to deposit in the trial court Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only) for payment to respondent No.2 as compensation. In case of default, petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months . iii. If pursuant to the order of this court or the appellate court petitioner has deposited any amount in the courts below , the said amount shall be adjusted in the compensation payable by the petitioner. Such amount if any Crl.R.P.No.1008/2007 4 in deposit can be withdrawn by respondent No.2. iv. It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of the direction for payment of compensation if petitioner paid compensation or the balance if any payable after adjusting the amount already in deposit to respondent No.2 through her counsel in the trial court and respondent No.2 filed a statement in the trial court through her counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within the above said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 1.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 1.12.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks