IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2656 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.278/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.673/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- A.K.ABU @ ABDUL KHADER, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.A.K.HYDERALI, KUTTITHODI HOUSE,IRUMPUZHI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.MATHEW,S/O.THOMAS, KOCHUPLAKKAL HOUSE,CHEMBUKKAVU P.O., KODENCHERY. 2. 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 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2656 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in in Crl. Appeal No.278 of 2008 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 28.6.2003 petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- from respondent No.1 undertaking to repay the same on 1.9.2005 and on that day issued Ext.P1, cheque dated 1.9.2005. Respondent No.1 presented the cheque on two occasions but the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On the request of petitioner the cheque was again presented on 8.3.2006 but again dishonoured for the same reason. Thereon statutory notice was issued to the petitioner. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of notice on the petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 to P6. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated about the transaction leading to the execution of the cheque. According to the CRL. R.P. No.2656 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner he borrowed only Rs.5,000/- from respondent No.1 and gave a signed blank cheque which is misused. It is seen that evidence of respondent No.1 as P.W.1 was not cross-examined by petitioner. Courts below found that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. It is also seen that petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice. In these circumstances courts below are justified in holding in favour of due execution of the cheque. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to respondent No.1 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court did not interfere with the substantive sentence, direction for payment of compensation or default sentence. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved there is no reason to interfere with the same at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel requested time till December, 2009 to deposit compensation. It is stated that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately. It is also requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay compensation directly to respondent No.1. CRL. R.P. No.2656 of 2009 -: 3 :- Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 to deposit the compensation. Resultantly, revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 21.12.2009 to deposit compensation in the trial court as ordered by that court. It is made clear that it shall be sufficient compliance with the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid 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 compensation within the said period. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 22.12.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any, against petitioner will remain in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv