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. 2116 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRA.553/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.733/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- VENPUGOPAL, S/O. LEELAMMA, PALAZHI HOUSE, 'SREEVALSAM' PAZHUVIL.P.O., NEAR GAYATHRI BUS STOP, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.ABDUL SAMAD K.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, S/O. RAGHAVAN, VAKKAYUL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYOOR.P.O. CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2116 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II) in Crl. Appeal No.553 of 2007 confirming conviction but modifying sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to respondent No.1, petitioner received Rs.1,75,000/- from him promising to arrange a Visa but failed to do so and executed Ext.P7, agreement on 2.7.2005 undertaking to repay the amount. For repayment of that amount petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 31.1.2006. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Respondent No.1 issued statutory notice to the petitioner which was returned as unclaimed in spite of intimation as seen from Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W1 and spoke to his case. Petitioner denied the allegations against him. Petitioner did not cross-examine respondent No.1. Courts below found in favour of due execution of the cheque. 2. When this revision came up for hearing on 3.7.2009 I directed that records of the trial court be called for to satisfy as to the date on which complaint was filed in the trail court. That was CRL. R.P. No.2116 of 2009 -: 2 :- necessitated on account of the statement in page 2 of the judgment of the learned magistrate that complaint is dated 20.5.2006 while in paragraph 13 it is stated that notice was issued on 13.3.2006 in which case a question would arise whether complaint was filed out of the statutory time. Learned counsel for petitioner placed for my perusal copy of the complaint which contained the seal of the trail court. Though the date of the complaint is not specifically stated in the complaint, it is seen from the document and witness schedules appended to the complaint that it is dated 21.4.2006. It contains the seal of the trial court with initial showing the date as 21.4.2006. If that be so, statement in paragraph 2 of the judgment that complaint is dated 20.5.2006 is only a mistake. If date of filing of the complaint is taken as 21.4.2006 learned counsel in fairness would say that the complaint is within time. As such it is unnecessary to wait for receipt of records of the trail court. 3. So far as execution of cheque is concerned there is uncontroverted evidence of respondent No.1 which gets corroboration from Exts.P1 and P7 which are not under challenge. Thus due execution of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt/liability is established. Conviction of petitioner therefore does not require CRL. R.P. No.2116 of 2009 -: 3 :- interference. 4. In modification of the sentence awarded by learned magistrate appellate court directed that petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction for payment of compensation was confirmed but default sentence for non-payment was fixed as simple imprisonment for six months. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence as modified by the appellate court, direction for payment of compensation as confirmed by the appellate court and the default sentence as modified by that court at the instance of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel requested six months’ time to deposit compensation in the trail court. According to learned counsel on account of financial difficulties petitioner is unable to raise the amount immediately. He also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to respondent No.1. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to grant time till 30.12.2009. Resultantly this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate court. If petitioner has already CRL. R.P. No.2116 of 2009 -: 4 :- deposited any amount in the trial court, that amount will be adjusted in the compensation directed to be deposited by the petitioner. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit 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 the compensation within the said time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv