IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2667 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.553/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.2735/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- T.PANKAJA KUMARI, ATHIRA, SREECHITRA NAGAR, D.20 PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. RENUKA DEVI, D/O RAMALEKSHMY AMMA, AKSHAYA, MOOLA KONAM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2667 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision which is not prejudicial to her. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Concurrent finding entered by the courts below as to the due execution of a cheque for the discharge of a debt/liability is attempted to be unsettled in this revision at the instance of petitioner/accused. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakkada in S.T.No.2735 of 2003 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed Rupees two lakhs from her and for repayment of that amount issued cheque dated 11.8.2003. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Statutory notice was issued to the petitioner in her residential and office address. Notice issued in the residential address was returned refused while the other returned unclaimed. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for realisation of the amount due under the cheque and that suit has been decreed. Exts.P6 and P7 are copy of the judgment and decree. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds and return of statutory notices as above stated are proved by Exts.P2 to P5, the certified photocopy of the relevant documents. Crl.R.P.No.2667/2009 2 According to the petitioner, she did not have any transaction with respondent No.1 and on the alleged date of transaction she was on duty in the office of Sub Registrar, Kottapady. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in that line. On the other hand respondent No.1 has given evidence regarding the transaction. The suggestion put to respondent No.1 while she was in the box that the signed blank cheque given to her was misused was denied by her. Petitioner did not adduce evidence or bring out circumstances in that line. That, notices sent to the petitioner were returned as refused and unclaimed indicated that petitioner was aware of the nature of claim being made by respondent No.1. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. In these circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below or the consequent conviction of petitioner. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. There is a direction for payment of compensation of Rupees two lakhs and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellate court while retaining direction for payment of compensation, modified substantive sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and default sentence as simple imprisonment for six months. Having regard to the nature of offence and the amount involved, I do not find reason to interfere with the sentence and direction for payment of compensation as modified by the appellate court, at the instance of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted five Crl.R.P.No.2667/2009 3 months’ time to deposit compensation since petitioner is in a financially difficult situation and is unable to raise the amount immediately. Considering the circumstances stated by learned counsel and the amount involved, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner till 18.1.2010 to deposit compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted time till 18.1.2010 to deposit compensation in the trial court. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 20.1.2010 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks