IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1650 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.626/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.347/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------- KABEER,S/O.HANEEFA,PULICKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM DAM, VANDAZHI,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. M.C.SUNNY, S/O.CHACKO,MUNDAPLACKAL HOUSE,PALAKKUZHI, KIZHAKKENCHERRY,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHIR RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1650 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make and which will not prejudice him. 2. Judgment of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal No.626 of 2006 is under challenge in this revision. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act). 3. Case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner borrowed Rs.1,60,000/- from him undertaking to repay the same within four months and on 20.12.2003 petitioner paid Rs.35,000/- in cash and issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 25.1.2004 for the balance sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Inspite of dishonour intimation and demand for payment, petitioner did not pay the amount. Dishonour of the cheque for the said reason is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P4 series and P5. Contention of petitioner is that he had no transaction with respondent No.2. and that at the request of respondent No.2, he had arranged a bus service to the locality of respondent No.2 which was operated by one Vijayakumar. There was some transactions between respondent No.2 and the said Vijayakumar. Crl.R.P.No.1650/2009 2 Respondent No.2 gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Though it was not suggested to respondent No.2, learned magistrate observed that there was some overwriting in the figure in Ext.P1. But that was of no consequence and did not affect the veracity of the case pleaded by respondent No.2. Petitioner was not able to prove or probabilise his case. It is pertinent to note that there is no reply to the notice served on the petitioner. Courts below have considered these facts and found that petitioner executed Ext.P1,cheque for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability as pleaded by respondent No.2. There is nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the finding entered by the courts below in that regard. 4. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and directed him to pay Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence as fine of Rs.1,30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was also directed that out of the fine if realised Rs.1,25,000/- will be paid to respondent No.2 as compensation. I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. At this stage counsel for petitioner requested for three months' time to deposit the fine in the trial court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow that request. Petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.1650/2009 3 granted three months’ time to deposit the fine as ordered by the appellate court in the trial court. Revision petition is disposed of as above. Crl.M.A.No.5034 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks